Efficient markets [Archive]

Epoche

23rd March 2006, 01:37

“ an efficient market will make everyone equal”.

I think here what must also be considered aside from the material economy, in terms of what is or what is not efficient, is also the psychological conditioning of the consumers present in such a discourse.

Part of the notion of "equality" in an economy is the morale of its producers and consumers. An efficient market should be capable of abolishing classes not only in regards to material wealth, but also psychological health. If, as Marx and his contemporaries suggest, human consciousness is determined by material conditions, then there would be no chance of suspecting inequality where there was no consumer advantage of one individual over another.

I have used the example elsewhere of China becomming "indoctrinated" through American mediation and sensationalism. For instance, it is not until a Chinese citizen is exposed to the capitalist lifestyle that he notices something is missing. The entire transformation of the political system through trade and culture influence occurs not out of necessity, but out of this contingent exposure: "wow, what luxurious lives the Americans lead...I would really like that." But remember that his sense of loss of privilege does not happen until he sees others who have it.

This example might work to explain how the original notions of equality are tainted by being exposed to such excessive privileges, such as private ownership and enterprise, personal industry and capital incentive.

Of course many will argue that it is inherently natural for exploitation to occur in civilization, and that an economic system which is not founded on the right to exceed others in terms of material consumerism is unjust. My argument is this: the human being is conditioned in his moderation of consumption and cannot experience a loss without first being exposed to such a potential.

Once you "let the cat out of the bag," so to speak, all is lost and its "every man for himself." While if you just kept the damn thing quiet...everyone would feel equal to everyone else.

On another note, I do not believe that human beings are equal as far as physical and intellectual capacity is concerned. The problem here, which has often been the excuse for practicing capitalism, is that those who are better than another at one thing should certainly reap the rewards of their efforts. But does that necessarily mean that part of that reward is in the ability to exploit another of a lesser capacity and power? I don't think so. I would ask again: how does one define "reward?" If we keep in mind what I stated above, that it is the material conditions which inspire psychological health and morale, then it should be obvious that even a man of greater skill and ability wouldn't need anything more than a man of a lesser skill and ability.

Must one own more than another man to feel rewarded? I don't see why this is necessary.

apathy maybe

23rd March 2006, 08:03

In my opinion, even in a 'perfect' market (even non capitalist ones) you can not achive equality.

Those that work 'harder' or are simply smarter will reap more rewards then those who are lazy, stupid, or otherwise disinclined to work for 'reward' (volunteers for example).

In a 'perfect' market where everyone started off equal (no inheritance, equal schooling) you world reach a state where perhapes the deeds of some were being appropriatly rewarded, but I don't it.

Tungsten

23rd March 2006, 15:21

Epoche

But does that necessarily mean that part of that reward is in the ability to exploit another of a lesser capacity and power?
That assumes that all wealth generation is exploitation, which is ridiculous.

If we keep in mind what I stated above, that it is the material conditions which inspire psychological health and morale, then it should be obvious that even a man of greater skill and ability wouldn't need anything more than a man of a lesser skill and ability.
What kind of a loser wants mere "needs"? Who wants to merely "exist"?

Must one own more than another man to feel rewarded? I don't see why this is necessary.
If I buy a fast car, it's because I like driving fast, not because I want to drive "faster" than everyone else and make them "jealous"- that's chav-think.

red team

24th March 2006, 01:47

But does that necessarily mean that part of that reward is in the ability to exploit another of a lesser capacity and power?

That assumes that all wealth generation is exploitation, which is ridiculous.

The majority of economic activity comes from self employment and small familiy enterprises? :lol:

Maybe only in your la la land called Ayn Rand Land.

Let's make it abundantly clear. There's only two kinds of businesses. You're either a self-employer or you are an employer.

If we keep in mind what I stated above, that it is the material conditions which inspire psychological health and morale, then it should be obvious that even a man of greater skill and ability wouldn't need anything more than a man of a lesser skill and ability.

What kind of a loser wants mere "needs"? Who wants to merely "exist"?

Pablo Escobar was a very skillful narco dealer and of course he deserves all the loot he got from his business. Need I say more? :lol:

Epoche

24th March 2006, 15:21

Tungsten:

That assumes that all wealth generation is exploitation, which is ridiculous.

A "made" thing is a representation of the labor force expense used to create it. When you "buy" a product, you are puchasing and consuming life activity, you are not buying an object that evolves out of thin air. The "wealth," which is nothing more than the symbolisation of that labor, is worth nothing more than that labor. If that wealth, in turn, can be used to generate a greater wealth by selling it, that is, inflating its value (equity, for example), then you have transformed that object into a manifestation of exploitation. ALL productions which are not personally generated, personally used, and personally destroyed, are part of a economy that functions from exploiting another. If you wish to generate wealth that does not involve exploitation....then pack your shit up, move to the wilderness, and live in a cave by yourself.

What kind of a loser wants mere "needs"? Who wants to merely "exist"?

The crux of this biscuit lies in the concept of the aesthetic and the practical. The evolution of the human species is a process that requires for its progress the development of new material commodities-- what starts as an aesthetic concept becomes a reality-- this is evidenced in the industrial age, for example. Humans were content riding horses until the creation of the combustion engine. The concept, before it became a reality, was aesthetic. When it became a reality, a practicality, it was no longer aesthetic. This process repeats ad infinitem. There is nothing wrong with wanting to progress the instrumentalism and utility of the material world. However, if there comes about a point where the practical is for one what is aesthetic for another, classes emerge and become discontent.

We are most certainly gregarious creatures and it is natural to develop tolerances for pleasures. Riding horses is no longer exciting. So we make cars. The "loser," whom you wish to portray as the content conservative who wants no access to the luxuries which are afforded to the classes above his own, is ironically the better man. Why? Because he is aware of the inaccessibility of those luxuries to all classes and wishes to not participate in that economy as a result.

Long story short: we ALL get a car or nobody does.

If I buy a fast car, it's because I like driving fast, not because I want to drive "faster" than everyone else and make them "jealous"- that's chav-think.

A car that achieves anything more than its necessary function crosses the line from the practical to the aesthetic. Where our roads have speed limits which are determined by what is the most efficient and safe means to utilize them for transportation...anything more is excessive. The point: you don't need to drive one-hundred miles an hour to get from point A to point B where it is not necessary to begin with.

The automobile industry is a competitve market which takes advantage of semiotic and aesthetic inclinations of the consumers: you associate fast, fancy cars with status and respectability. Even though you claim to not want to make another man jealous by driving the "sleak, black Corvette with twenty-inch rims and da bomb system," he will still become jealous because he is, like yourself, associating moral status with the ownership of that kind of product.

The market feeds off this false value system and is forever trying to out-produce the competitve companies which produce superior products. The point: there should be no inferior or superior products where the function of the product is the same-- to get from point A to point B efficiently and safely.

Publius

24th March 2006, 22:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:30 PM

A "made" thing is a representation of the labor force expense used to create it.

Somewhat.

Some 'made things' require a lot of labor and are sold cheaply, some require little labor and are expensive.

There is clearly more to it than labor.

When you "buy" a product, you are puchasing and consuming life activity, you are not buying an object that evolves out of thin air.

No, the 'life activity' was purchased long ago, by wages.

Your employer buys your time.

You're obfuscating the issue.

The "wealth," which is nothing more than the symbolisation of that labor, is worth nothing more than that labor.

No, wealth isn't worth labor, wealth is entirely subjective.

It's worth whatever people say it is. Labor has very little to do with it.

If that wealth, in turn, can be used to generate a greater wealth by selling it, that is, inflating its value (equity, for example), then you have transformed that object into a manifestation of exploitation.

No you haven't. That isn't a logical continuation at all.

Selling something isn't 'inflating' its value, because its value is subjective by its very nature.

Is selling something below cost 'deflating value'? Selling at cost staying absolutely value neutral? Clearly not, because if it was 'value neutral', no one would ever make a market decision.

I don't think you realize the economic implications of what you're saying.

ALL productions which are not personally generated, personally used, and personally destroyed, are part of a economy that functions from exploiting another.

"I'll trade you my hammer, that I don't need but you do, for your shovel, that you don't need but I do" is an example of 'exploitation?

Insane.

Exploitation would be to force those people to keep things that don't want or strictly need.

Let's see if you can figure out where I'm going with this obvious logic.

If you wish to generate wealth that does not involve exploitation....then pack your shit up, move to the wilderness, and live in a cave by yourself.

It's clear you have no idea how wealth is really created.

The crux of this biscuit lies in the concept of the aesthetic and the practical.

You do obfuscate well.

The evolution of the human species is a process that requires for its progress the development of new material commodities-- what starts as an aesthetic concept becomes a reality-- this is evidenced in the industrial age, for example.

How is that an 'aesthetic'?

Humans were content riding horses until the creation of the combustion engine.

Which has nothing to do with 'aesthetics' and everything to do with convenience.

The concept, before it became a reality, was aesthetic.

How can a 'concept' be 'aesthetic'?

What does that even mean?

When it became a reality, a practicality, it was no longer aesthetic.

So then what point is there ascribing a value like 'aesthetic' to something that isn't real and thus has no value?

This process repeats ad infinitem.

How is that a process? It's a sophistry.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to progress the instrumentalism and utility of the material world.

Why must all Marxist talk with like third rate philosophers?

Perhaps because they are?

However, if there comes about a point where the practical is for one what is aesthetic for another, classes emerge and become discontent.

As practicality and aestheticity are subjectice, I don't see how you can ever do away with classes.

We are most certainly gregarious creatures and it is natural to develop tolerances for pleasures. Riding horses is no longer exciting. So we make cars.

That is a horrible summarization.

You really think we drive because it's 'more exciting' not because it 15+ times more efficient?

The "loser," whom you wish to portray as the content conservative who wants no access to the luxuries which are afforded to the classes above his own, is ironically the better man. Why? Because he is aware of the inaccessibility of those luxuries to all classes and wishes to not participate in that economy as a result.

Long story short: we ALL get a car or nobody does.

And to make that story even shorter: Nobody does.

Glad to see we can dispense of that topic so handily.

A car that achieves anything more than its necessary function crosses the line from the practical to the aesthetic.

Subjective values.

You're not God. You have no power to dictate to me what my car is to me.

Where our roads have speed limits which are determined by what is the most efficient and safe means to utilize them for transportation...anything more is excessive.

No it isn't.

Our speed limits are often wrong and inefficient. They serve mostly as a financial prop for local governments.

If you think '55' is really THE most effective speed, on a cost benefit analysis, than you are completely deluded.

The point: you don't need to drive one-hundred miles an hour to get from point A to point B where it is not necessary to begin with.

What is necessary for me is dictated by me; indvidual freedom.

The automobile industry is a competitve market which takes advantage of semiotic and aesthetic inclinations of the consumers: you associate fast, fancy cars with status and respectability.

You really do like making value judgements and unfounded assertions, don't you.

Even though you claim to not want to make another man jealous by driving the "sleak, black Corvette with twenty-inch rims and da bomb system," he will still become jealous because he is, like yourself, associating moral status with the ownership of that kind of product.

Whether this an actual phenemona or a figment of your imagination is actually not relevent, because this in no way proves your point.

The market feeds off this false value system

Little secret: All value systems are as false as all others.

and is forever trying to out-produce the competitve companies which produce superior products.

Down with superiour products!

The point: there should be no inferior or superior products where the function of the product is the same-- to get from point A to point B efficiently and safely.

Which of course, is subjective to everyone.

I may be willing to get there faster, at an increased risk to myself, while others may be willing to go slower.

The point is, I have the freedom to choose.

Can you imagine living in a society with no aesthetics? It would be hell.

Epoche

24th March 2006, 23:45

Publius:

I want to address each of your arguments individually and step by step.

Some 'made things' require a lot of labor and are sold cheaply, some require little labor and are expensive.

There is clearly more to it than labor.

The value you are drawing by referencing the "sales" of these things are contingent, they have nothing to do with the force of labor. They fluxuate according to a supply and a demand. You are also creating false problems because you are arguing from within the system that creates the conditions for those problems to arise. Where there is a surplus of goods, a small demand, or a competing market...costs will be cheap. And vice-versa for the contrary. The only reason why a value should not be objective would be because there was a competing market that threatened the profit margin of the capitalist, thereby changing the price...but not the effort of labor to produce it. Things are made and have consistent costs where there is no element of competition.

Please do tell how the value of the goods produced by those who contract their labor determine the value of that labor where that labor is the same regardless of the value of what is sold. How much does metabolism cost?

"Wages are, therefore, not the worker's share in the commodity produced by him. Wages are the part of already existing commodities with which the capitalist buys for himself a definite amount of productive labour power."- Marx

Marx demonstrates here:

"The capitalist, it seems, therefore, buys their labour with money. They sell him their labour for money. But this is merely the appearance. In reality what they sell to the capitalist for money is their labour power. The capitalist buys this labour power for a day, a week, and month, etc. And after he has bought it, he uses it by having the workers work for the stipulated time. For the same sum with which the capitalist has bought their labour power, for example, two marks, he could have bought two pounds of sugar or a definite amount of any other commodity. The two marks, with which he bought two pounds of sugar, are the price of the two pounds of sugar. The two marks, with which he bought twelve hours' use of labour power, are the price of twelve hours' labour. Labour power, therefore, is a commodity, neither more nor less than sugar. The former is measured by the clock, the latter by the scales."

Now consider this: If you are a capitalist and you have to lower your prices to gain back the business of the public who has chosen to do business with another company that is selling the same product for less, you will temporarily lose your profit ratio. To get that margin back, you can lower the wages of your workers who produce the products you are now forced to sell at cheaper prices. Here, your workers are working the same amount of time for less wages per unit of time, while what they are producing is sold at a cheaper price to gain back the publics business. The capitalist, rather than allowing his business to collapse, shifts the weight of emergency onto the workers and pays them less. But they are doing the same work.

I think it is clear that the value of a produced commodity has everything to do with the labour and anything else is a market contingency. A "little" or a "lot" of labour, just like an "expensive" or a "cheap" cost, is irrelevent when concerning the actual means to produce it. To make a profit off of another's work force is exploitation. To pay a worker the full value of the product he produced, if it is sold, is a redundancy. There would be no employer in this case and therefore no exploitation.

And no, I've never taken an economics class in my life, now that you ask. Although this all makes perfect sense to me. I wouldn't think I'd need a degree to understand it.

Publius

25th March 2006, 00:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 11:54 PM

The value you are drawing by referencing the "sales" of these things are contingent, they have nothing to do with the force of labor. They fluxuate according to a supply and a demand. You are also creating false problems because you are arguing from within the system that creates the conditions for those problems to arise. Where there is a surplus of goods, a small demand, or a competing market...costs will be cheap. And vice-versa for the contrary. The only reason why a value should not be objective would be because there was a competing market that threatened the profit margin of the capitalist, thereby changing the price...but not the effort of labor to produce it. Things are made and have consistent costs where there is no element of competition.

Value is not objective, is the problem.

Tell me what the objective value of a hammer is. Can't do it, can you?

You can't ascribe a value to it because it's entirely subjective.

You're failing to see that 'labor' is not relevent to discussions about cost or value.

You're essentially saying 'the problem with markets is that they are subjective'.

Please do tell how the value of the goods produced by those who contract their labor determine the value of that labor where that labor is the same regardless of the value of what is sold. How much does metabolism cost?

Whatever it's sold for.

I don't I have to prove that these are equal; that isn't my point.

My point is that it doesn't matter what the discrepency is.

The worker was paid to work, for specific labor. If the boss can sell that for a profit, so what? What if he sold at value? Or at a loss?

It wouldn't make any difference.

"Wages are, therefore, not the worker's share in the commodity produced by him.

They aren't.

Wages are the part of already existing commodities with which the capitalist buys for himself a definite amount of productive labour power."- Marx

Yes.

"The capitalist, it seems, therefore, buys their labour with money. They sell him their labour for money. But this is merely the appearance. In reality what they sell to the capitalist for money is their labour power.

Tautology.

The capitalist buys this labour power for a day, a week, and month, etc. And after he has bought it, he uses it by having the workers work for the stipulated time. For the same sum with which the capitalist has bought their labour power, for example, two marks, he could have bought two pounds of sugar or a definite amount of any other commodity. The two marks, with which he bought two pounds of sugar, are the price of the two pounds of sugar. The two marks, with which he bought twelve hours' use of labour power, are the price of twelve hours' labour. Labour power, therefore, is a commodity, neither more nor less than sugar. The former is measured by the clock, the latter by the scales."

Labor is a commodity, yes.

Now consider this: If you are a capitalist and you have to lower your prices to gain back the business of the public who has chosen to do business with another company that is selling the same product for less, you will temporarily lose your profit ratio. To get that margin back, you can lower the wages of your workers who produce the products you are now forced to sell at cheaper prices. Here, your workers are working the same amount of time for less wages per unit of time, while what they are producing is sold at a cheaper price to gain back the publics business. The capitalist, rather than allowing his business to collapse, shifts the weight of emergency onto the workers and pays them less. But they are doing the same work.

Are they?

'Work', in this sense, should be defined as producing what the public wants, at the price the public wants, therefore, their labor is less valuable, period.

If you're producing something that is less valuable, your labor is obviously then less valuable.

FOr example: Digging a hole to plant something is labor, is valuable. Digging holes at random isn't 'labor' and has no value.

Yes, in both cases you're 'digging a hole', but they are clearly completely different things.

One has a high subjective value, the other a low one.

I think it is clear that the value of a produced commodity has everything to do with the labour and anything else is a market contingency. A "little" or a "lot" of labour, just like an "expensive" or a "cheap" cost, is irrelevent when concerning the actual means to produce it. To make a profit off of another's work force is exploitation. To pay a worker the full value of the product he produced, if it is sold, is a redundancy. There would be no employer in this case and therefore no exploitation.

But this conveniently ignores cases where employers sell at even marks or at cost to themselves.

Workers making X-Boxes, for example, are making something which sells BELOW their labor cost.

Are they being un-exploited? Say, for example, worker X makes 5 dollars an hour making VCRs that are marked up 50%.

Worker Y makes 5 dollars an hour asssembling X-Boxes, which are sold at a loss.

Say they spend the same amount of time assembling each.

Who is being exploited more? Obviously the one making VCRs, as his labor is making 'excess profit'.

But what if worker Ys wages were lowered. Say he made 4 bucks an hour. Who would then be exploited? Again, according to you and Marx, it would be working X because a capitalist is making 'excess profit' on his labor, wheras producer Y's employer is losing money on his production.

I think now you can clearly see how absurd this is.

Defining 'exploitation' as 'excess profit' is faulty because final profit and individual labor are almost wholly disonnected; all that truly matters is supply and demand for the product itself.

And no, I've never taken an economics class in my life, now that you ask. Although this all makes perfect sense to me. I wouldn't think I'd need a degree to understand it.

Have you read any non-Marxist books on it?

cyu

25th March 2006, 01:22

The worker was paid to work, for specific labor. If the boss can sell that for a profit, so what? What if he sold at value? Or at a loss?

The money doesn't come from the boss, it comes from customers. Without customers, the boss wouldn't have any money to pay the employees. The boss is basically just a middle-man that can be eliminated. Employees are the ones that deal directly with the customers on a day to day basis anyway, so in that sense, the boss isn't even a middle-man.

Publius

25th March 2006, 01:47

The money doesn't come from the boss, it comes from customers. Without customers, the boss wouldn't have any money to pay the employees. The boss is basically just a middle-man that can be eliminated. Employees are the ones that deal directly with the customers on a day to day basis anyway, so in that sense, the boss isn't even a middle-man.

So then, logically, worker run companies would be more efficient.

So why don't/can't they compete in an open market, like ours?

cyu

25th March 2006, 01:58

So then, logically, worker run companies would be more efficient.

Actually, they may or may not be. It depends on your definition of efficiency. If by efficiency you mean how good they are at creating a better life for the employees themselves, then yes, they would be more efficient since they will be the ones in control of working conditions and hours. If by efficiency you mean raw output, then maybe not. Maybe they don't want to be forced to work 60 hours a week, so they can choose less.

So why don't/can't they compete in an open market, like ours?

Access to capital, duh. Capital is owned by the few - wage slaves need capital to run a company. Are capitalists going to just give the raw materials and equipment to a democratically run company just to see how well they'll compete? Of course not. The people have to seize it from the capitalists.

Publius

25th March 2006, 02:33

Actually, they may or may not be. It depends on your definition of efficiency. If by efficiency you mean how good they are at creating a better life for the employees themselves, then yes, they would be more efficient since they will be the ones in control of working conditions and hours. If by efficiency you mean raw output, then maybe not. Maybe they don't want to be forced to work 60 hours a week, so they can choose less.

Production per time spent producing.

Access to capital, duh.

Get a few thousand people together to amass capital.

Visit a venture capital firm, they'll give money to nearly anyone.

Capital is owned by the few - wage slaves need capital to run a company.

Well they should have no problem amassing capital without pernicious bosses.

Are capitalists going to just give the raw materials and equipment to a democratically run company just to see how well they'll compete?

Do they just give them to competitors, normally?

Of course not. The people have to seize it from the capitalists.

Be my guest.

Epoche

25th March 2006, 18:37

Okay Pubs, I can see now that you're a one-line wonder, so we'll continue tit for tat, mmkay?

Tell me what the objective value of a hammer is. Can't do it, can you?

Of course. I want to build a house of certain specifications. I have two hammers before me. Which ever hammer is the most productive and efficient in building that house is the better of the two. One cannot simply decide "hey, that hammer has a subjective value and I say it sucks because the other one looks cooler," because the function of the hammer is to achieve an objective end-- the house. The hammer cannot be judged outside of the context it is used in, and the context is none other than the procees of achieving the objective.

If the house has objective standards then so too does the hammer which builds it because the hammer is an extension of the effort to do so.

There is no aesthetic evaluation in the hammer. Its purpose is entirely objective.

You're essentially saying 'the problem with markets is that they are subjective'.

No. A market is just as objective as a house or a hammer because the function is the same regardless of a subjective value. If I sell you a house, the process of selling you that house, just like the process of building that house, is the same. You may choose to believe that it is too expensive, or that the house is ugly, but this has nothing to do with function of each.

'Work', in this sense, should be defined as producing what the public wants, at the price the public wants, therefore, their labor is less valuable, period.

No. The "public" doesn't decide what the costs of a product are no more than an employer determines the value of a laborers efforts. The public will deny business to a company if it can buy the same product for a cheaper price from a competing company. Labor becomes less valuable if it costs an employer more money-- but it isn't the power of that labor that is less valuable-- it is the laborers who supply that power and who demand higher wages. If Pedro does work X for Y amount of money, and Juan will do work X for B amount of money, Juan will get the job...but he still does the same work. The value of the products made by Juan have nothing to do with his labor and everything to do with the element of competition from other markets.

And another thing. The "public" doesn't decide what they want. Nobody wanted a microwave until they new that microwaves existed. Products are designed, patented, and manufactured by companies that create the market. Tell me, do you want a Kilamantas set? No, because no such thing exists.

If you're producing something that is less valuable, your labor is obviously then less valuable.

But nothing is considered "less valuable" unless it is A) useless, or B) more expensive than the price a competing company would sell it for.

This TV is the same as that TV, but it is not as valuable as the other one because the other one is cheaper. The TV's are the same. The price is different. The "value" is not only determined by the object but also the price and accessibility. Meanwhile, Pedro and Juan spend the same hours building the TV's in the factory. Their wages will fluxuate according to their employers decision, which is in turn based on the preservation of his business. The guy across the street is selling this model at X amount of dollars, while he is selling the model at Y amount of dollars. If his sales volume decreases, he will either A) lower the prices of the TV's and lower the wages he pays to his workers to balance that margin out, or B) raise the wages he pays his workers in an attempt to persuade the workers across the street to come work for him, thereby lowering the production rate of his competitor by lowering the number of employees.

FOr example: Digging a hole to plant something is labor, is valuable. Digging holes at random isn't 'labor' and has no value.

A false dilemma. Nobody is going to dig holes at random in the first place. If a hole is dug to achieve an objective end, then the work becomes a commodity and should be a public investement. The minute you have private enterprises, all of which dig their own holes and sell those holes, you begin the competition, and we are right back where we started three posts ago.

One has a high subjective value, the other a low one.

Perhaps we should discuss what "objective" and "subjective" might mean in your mouth. As a materialist I call it a false dichotomy. A proposition about the world cannot be "subjective." That's nonsense. What can be true for you but not true for me? Are there many worlds that I am not aware of?

But this conveniently ignores cases where employers sell at even marks or at cost to themselves.

Workers making X-Boxes, for example, are making something which sells BELOW their labor cost.

Are they being un-exploited? Say, for example, worker X makes 5 dollars an hour making VCRs that are marked up 50%.

Worker Y makes 5 dollars an hour asssembling X-Boxes, which are sold at a loss.

Say they spend the same amount of time assembling each.

Who is being exploited more? Obviously the one making VCRs, as his labor is making 'excess profit'.

But what if worker Ys wages were lowered. Say he made 4 bucks an hour. Who would then be exploited? Again, according to you and Marx, it would be working X because a capitalist is making 'excess profit' on his labor, wheras producer Y's employer is losing money on his production.

I think now you can clearly see how absurd this is.

You lost me, dude. Who, if I may ask, is going to start a company hoping to lose profit? If costs are marked down it will be a temporary strategic maneuver to gain back business or because there is a surplus of stock which must be sold. Obviously the old X-Box is sold for cheaper than its original price because there is a new X-Box and a warehouse full of old ones.

Defining 'exploitation' as 'excess profit' is faulty because final profit and individual labor are almost wholly disonnected

I don't define it as "excess" profit. I define it as ANY profit. But "profit" only exists where "loss" exists. "Loss" only exists where there are competing markets. Absolve private ownership and capital potential and the market becomes public-- nobody loses...nobody gains. Your entire argument rests on the false dilemmas created by the very system you use to turn around and justify them with. Your argument is circular: "workers must be exploited so there is a gain in profit...a gain in profit must be made so workers aren't exploited."

Have you read any non-Marxist books on it?

Not one. In fact, I have only recently began studying Marxism. Political sciences are fairly new to me and I've spent most of my time studying Existentialsm. Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Sartre, specifically. It was Sartre who led me to Marx.

I am attracted to Marx, naturally, because I am a blue-collar worker who has been knee deep in capitalist shit for thirteen years. I have declined my right to start my own business because of my principles. I will not go from the exploited to the exploiter. I live my life as a traveller and gypsy, looking for my lost comrades. One day I will become a great guerrilla leader. I belong in the jungle, so help me Che.

[the crowd cheers]

cyu

26th March 2006, 21:14

Actually, they may or may not be. It depends on your definition of efficiency. If by efficiency you mean how good they are at creating a better life for the employees themselves, then yes, they would be more efficient since they will be the ones in control of working conditions and hours. If by efficiency you mean raw output, then maybe not. Maybe they don't want to be forced to work 60 hours a week, so they can choose less.
Production per time spent producing.

Do you think employees would have more incentive to "produce per time spent producing" if they were the ones taking home all the revenue, instead of having to give a percentage of everything they produced to the shareholder? Even if they did produce the same amount, employees would have more for themselves "per time spent" if the shareholder wasn't in the picture, so the efficiency with respect to the employee is increased.

The people have to seize it from the capitalists.
Be my guest.

If you have no problem with employees assuming control over their companies, then we have no disagreement. But somehow I doubt that's what you mean when you say "Be my guest".

Publius

26th March 2006, 23:19

Okay Pubs, I can see now that you're a one-line wonder, so we'll continue tit for tat, mmkay?

'One line wonder'. I like that.

Of course. I want to build a house of certain specifications. I have two hammers before me. Which ever hammer is the most productive and efficient in building that house is the better of the two.

Is it?

One cannot simply decide "hey, that hammer has a subjective value and I say it sucks because the other one looks cooler," because the function of the hammer is to achieve an objective end-- the house.

Sure one can.

Is a wooden-handled hammer better than a plastic-handled one? One with a weight in it?

Do people really know or even care? Or do they just have personal preference? "I've always used a wooden hammer" or "plastic is lighter" or whatever.

The hammer cannot be judged outside of the context it is used in, and the context is none other than the procees of achieving the objective.

The context is whatever the person using it wants it to be.

Obviously the hammer will fit that context, but that context could be anything.

"I want a pretty hammer to hang on my wall" for instance.

If the house has objective standards then so too does the hammer which builds it because the hammer is an extension of the effort to do so.

Houses don't have 'objective standards'. They get whatever value we choose to ascribe to them. Usually high, as the elements can be harsh, but they in no way have any of transcendent, objective 'use' or value.

There is no aesthetic evaluation in the hammer. Its purpose is entirely objective.

You saying it doesn't make it so.

No. A market is just as objective as a house or a hammer because the function is the same regardless of a subjective value.

A market is based entirely on subjective wants and choices.

If I sell you a house, the process of selling you that house, just like the process of building that house, is the same. You may choose to believe that it is too expensive, or that the house is ugly, but this has nothing to do with function of each.

Of course it does.

If I thought it was 'too expensive' or 'too ugly' I wouldn't buy it, thus the subjectivity of my whims would prevent me from buying a house that may be objectively better (However you would define that).

No. The "public" doesn't decide what the costs of a product are no more than an employer determines the value of a laborers efforts.

In a competitive market they can.

Tell me then, who does determin the value of labor?

The public will deny business to a company if it can buy the same product for a cheaper price from a competing company. Labor becomes less valuable if it costs an employer more money-- but it isn't the power of that labor that is less valuable-- it is the laborers who supply that power and who demand higher wages.

The power of the labor is less valuable as well.

For example, compare the value of the labor, or the power, for digging a hole.

You can have someone dig with a shovel or use a machine to aid the process.

Whose labor is then more valuable? Who's 'labor power'?

And another thing. The "public" doesn't decide what they want. Nobody wanted a microwave until they new that microwaves existed. Products are designed, patented, and manufactured by companies that create the market. Tell me, do you want a Kilamantas set? No, because no such thing exists.

If a Kilamantas set is something that could aid me in my everyday life, than yes I do want it.

I don't need to know what it is, as long is it's something that would make my life better (Subjectively).

Products fill in wants or needs. For example, people want food created quickly and easily; enter the microwave.

It's not as if people just one day decided "These new microwaves are kind of cool, I should get one" and then LATER figured out it would save them a lot of time and effort.

They wanted the expediency first, thus the microwave is merely a place holder for another value, say, getting your food fixed quickly.

I don't want a car because I 'like cars', I want a car so I get place to place. Others want cars to race them, or to make them look cool, or to tweak them.

But nothing is considered "less valuable" unless it is A) useless, or B) more expensive than the price a competing company would sell it for.

Something is less valuable to may if I decide it is.

Something is less valuable to society as a whole of society decides it is.

This TV is the same as that TV, but it is not as valuable as the other one because the other one is cheaper.

It depends.

Exactly the same? Or a different brand name, perhaps? Different store?

The TV's are the same. The price is different. The "value" is not only determined by the object but also the price and accessibility.

Partially, yes.

Meanwhile, Pedro and Juan spend the same hours building the TV's in the factory. Their wages will fluxuate according to their employers decision, which is in turn based on the preservation of his business. The guy across the street is selling this model at X amount of dollars, while he is selling the model at Y amount of dollars. If his sales volume decreases, he will either A) lower the prices of the TV's and lower the wages he pays to his workers to balance that margin out, or B) raise the wages he pays his workers in an attempt to persuade the workers across the street to come work for him, thereby lowering the production rate of his competitor by lowering the number of employees.

If Pedro does work X for Y amount of money, and Juan will do work X for B amount of money, Juan will get the job...but he still does the same work.

No, he does fundamentally different work, because he does at a different price.

The value of the products made by Juan have nothing to do with his labor and everything to do with the element of competition from other markets.

The two are related.

A false dilemma.

An example.

Nobody is going to dig holes at random in the first place.

But what if they did?

People do similarly pointless things all the time.

If a hole is dug to achieve an objective end, then the work becomes a commodity and should be a public investement. The minute you have private enterprises, all of which dig their own holes and sell those holes, you begin the competition, and we are right back where we started three posts ago.

Why should you be able to use my hole?

What part of MY labor and my employers money gives YOU any say on how our hole is used?

Perhaps we should discuss what "objective" and "subjective" might mean in your mouth. As a materialist I call it a false dichotomy. A proposition about the world cannot be "subjective." That's nonsense. What can be true for you but not true for me?

In discussing value it can be.

For example, money.

Money is subjective; it's paper. Paper, very low value. Certain pieces of paper, high value.

Hell, the money can be EXACTLY the same, only one is counterfeit and the other 'real' and they have different values.

I could give you two bills that are EXACTLY the same and ask if you'd rather have the real one or the counterfeit one; guess which you would choose?

Subjectivity.

Are there many worlds that I am not aware of?

If 'world' is analogous to person, yes.

You lost me, dude. Who, if I may ask, is going to start a company hoping to lose profit?

Ever seen the Producers?

I kid, slightly.

If costs are marked down it will be a temporary strategic maneuver to gain back business or because there is a surplus of stock which must be sold.

Yes.

But so what?

Why they sell at a loss makes no difference, according to your line of argumentation.

Obviously the old X-Box is sold for cheaper than its original price because there is a new X-Box and a warehouse full of old ones.

Doesn't matter.

If sold 'marked up' is exploitation, sold 'marked down' obviously has to be giving something free to the workers, money that somehow isn't real, according to the Marxian analysis.

I don't define it as "excess" profit. I define it as ANY profit. But "profit" only exists where "loss" exists. "Loss" only exists where there are competing markets. Absolve private ownership and capital potential and the market becomes public-- nobody loses...nobody gains.

What facile analysis.

You really think 'profit' and 'loss' are capitalistic in nature? They don't represent actual happenings in the real world?

Your entire argument rests on the false dilemmas created by the very system you use to turn around and justify them with. Your argument is circular: "workers must be exploited so there is a gain in profit...a gain in profit must be made so workers aren't exploited."

That isn't my line of argumentation at all...

Not one.

I would seriously recommend one.

In fact, I have only recently began studying Marxism. Political sciences are fairly new to me and I've spent most of my time studying Existentialsm. Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Sartre, specifically. It was Sartre who led me to Marx.

I am attracted to Marx, naturally, because I am a blue-collar worker who has been knee deep in capitalist shit for thirteen years. I have declined my right to start my own business because of my principles.

Some 'principals'; 'allow the evil capitalists to continue exploiting'.

I will not go from the exploited to the exploiter.

Until the revolution, of course.

I live my life as a traveller and gypsy, looking for my lost comrades. One day I will become a great guerrilla leader. I belong in the jungle, so help me Che.

Please do go the jungle.

Publius

26th March 2006, 23:23

Do you think employees would have more incentive to "produce per time spent producing" if they were the ones taking home all the revenue, instead of having to give a percentage of everything they produced to the shareholder?

Yes, but so what?

Without investment they would have anything to produce with, so the point isn't.

Even if they did produce the same amount, employees would have more for themselves "per time spent" if the shareholder wasn't in the picture, so the efficiency with respect to the employee is increased.

Until you realize that investment is necessary, so take a big cut of that 'extra' money and toss it back to exactly where it would have went before.

And say goodbye to future investment.

If you have no problem with employees assuming control over their companies, then we have no disagreement. But somehow I doubt that's what you mean when you say "Be my guest".

It's exactly what I meant.

Go ahead and do it, if you can.

Epoche

27th March 2006, 02:50

Sure one can.

Is a wooden-handled hammer better than a plastic-handled one? One with a weight in it?

Do people really know or even care? Or do they just have personal preference? "I've always used a wooden hammer" or "plastic is lighter" or whatever.

We aren't on the same page. Let me try a different metaphor to express what I mean when I say that all utilities have an objective function.

If I have a car and it needs a repair job, there are only two outcomes to what can happen. Either the car remains broken, or it gets fixed. The objective for the service of having it fixed is to get it fixed as "cheap" as possible, and the "fixed car" is an objective thing, that is, there is no subjective conception of the objective-- there is no degree of the "fixed car." The middle is excluded, there is no "almost fixed." Also, the "costs," although part of the objective, are not neccessary to the objective and only contingent-- the market context of competition and the differences in prices.

The hammer can be compared like this. The use of the hammer and the appearance of the hammer are exclusive qualities. The weight, if it is determined to be more efficient in achieving the end of its use, would obviously be part of the objective definition of "the best hammer."

But the "best hammer" would not be the hammer that does the job the fastest because there is no quota involved where the objective definition for the "best hammer" is simply the hammer that lasts the longest and with the most durability. Only if there is a competitive quota caused from a deadline, which is of course is a consequence of the market, can the definition of "best hammer" be subjective, and which would have nothing to do with the hammer but rather the worker who used it.

The appearance, obviously, would be irrelevent to its objective also, but can have an aesthetic value, however that is a different value altogether, and must be considered seperately from the objective defintion.

You ask if people have a preference or if they really care. Sure they do, but often the preferences are results of extraneous novel qualities.

For example, the only instance where there is a "subjective" opinion present in a judgement about a product or utility is when there is a variation within a genre and a aesthetic evaluation is made: "the red car looks cooler." Here, one can easily mistake this contingent description as a necessary part of the definition of objectivity for the function of the car. While there is a preference in this judgement, it does not reduce the value of the car to a subjective opinion where the car performs a function that is not affected by such extraneous qualties.

Does a red cool car do a better job at driving from point A to point B, or driving the speed limit, or hauling cargo, or transporting people? I wouldn't think so. So the only absolute characteristic of the car is the quality that the genre itself has, and is therefore the objective criteria.

The context is whatever the person using it wants it to be.

Obviously the hammer will fit that context, but that context could be anything.

"I want a pretty hammer to hang on my wall" for instance.

Clever. But look closer. If hammers are intended to be used as door-stops, the majority of hammers wouldn't be used to pound nails (we are talking about a carpenter's hammer here), but not because they can't or shouldn't be used as door-stops...only because any other function that the hammer could be used for is already covered by something that is intended for it-- in this case a manufactured door-stop. Likewise, even though I can comb my hair with a hammer, I am making an exception to the rule of its intention. The hammer isn't made to be sold as a comb or a door stop, and it does a better job at building a house than a brass weight or comb would do. If this was not the case, I doubt I would ever choose a hammer to brush my teeth with.

Sure, its a consensus fallacy, but you can't expect me to believe that an economy would continue to exist where hammers were suddenly bought to be used as door-stops. And even if it did, the function would then take on a new objective definition in part (could this be a kind of Hegelian "product dialectic" of synthesis!?). Now, the objective definition of "the best hammer" concerns the efficiency of stopping-doors and building houses. My god, I might be on to something.

Kidding. I think you got me, Pubs. I'll give you that one. But I did a better job at working out your argument than you did. You owe me.

The use of it as art is another matter. All things have artistic value but these are subjective preferences that are excluded from the function of the object if it isn't a deliberate production of art itself. In other words, if you hang a hammer on the wall to look at, you could call it art, but the things which you admire about it, its aesthetic features, do not affect its function if it were used to build a house; the "ugly" hammer does as good as the "pretty" hammer.

Houses don't have 'objective standards'. They get whatever value we choose to ascribe to them. Usually high, as the elements can be harsh, but they in no way have any of transcendent, objective 'use' or value.

See above.

I'll check out the rest tomorrow. I have to sleep now so I can be exploited tomorrow at work.

Cheers.

Publius

27th March 2006, 03:41

This is actually a pretty good discussion, but it's rather obfuscatory.

I enjoy it though.

red team

27th March 2006, 06:17

The only efficient and democratic market is an entirely consumer drive one. The one that we have is far from a entirely consumer driven market as investors also play a part in skewing this for their own profit.

cyu

27th March 2006, 18:57

Do you think employees would have more incentive to "produce per time spent producing" if they were the ones taking home all the revenue, instead of having to give a percentage of everything they produced to the shareholder?
Yes, but so what?

Without investment they would have anything to produce with, so the point isn't.

Maybe you don't understand anarcho-syndicalism. Anarcho-syndicalists believe employees should not be prevented from assuming democratic control over their companies. Right there, you have stuff to produce with. In general, anarchists believe people should own the things they are already using. As for raw materials and other capital that nobody is using, but could be used, their use is determined democratically by the people in that area. In other words, without the claim to ownership of the means of production that you aren't actually using yourself, there would be no need for shareholders.

If you have no problem with employees assuming control over their companies, then we have no disagreement. But somehow I doubt that's what you mean when you say "Be my guest".
It's exactly what I meant.

Go ahead and do it, if you can.

There are companies right now in Argentina that are being occupied and run by their employees. If you have no problem with it, that's perfectly fine with me.

Tungsten

27th March 2006, 19:13

red team

Maybe only in your la la land called Ayn Rand Land.
That stings coming from a utopian socialist. :lol:

Let's make it abundantly clear. There's only two kinds of businesses. You're either a self-employer or you are an employer.
So we've got a choice between being an exploiter or his victim? I prefered this argument when it came from Christians and involved angels and demons.

It was more realistic.

Pablo Escobar was a very skillful narco dealer and of course he deserves all the loot he got from his business.
What loot? How does this answer the question?

Need I say more?
Epoche
It sounds interesting, but it doesn't actually say anything, does it? Not to mention that it doesn't follow.

The automobile industry is a competitve market which takes advantage of semiotic and aesthetic inclinations of the consumers: you associate fast, fancy cars with status and respectability.
No, I associate speed with excitement- personal pleasure. That makes me the opposite of a chav, who buys an economy car and makes it up to look like an expensive sports car in order to impess others. I have no interest in "bling".

The market feeds off this false value system and is forever trying to out-produce the competitve companies which produce superior products. The point: there should be no inferior or superior products
But there are bound to be "inferior and superiot products" in any free market system. Just look at the car market.

where the function of the product is the same-- to get from point A to point B efficiently and safely.
Except that I can get from A to B more efficiently and safely in some cars than I can in others.

Epoche

28th March 2006, 22:56

Pubs, I can't do anything with what you give me because your style of responding is tedious. If you reply to a paragraph I wrote with a simple:

"Is it?"

...you are asking me twice if I meant what I said. If I didn't atleast think what I said was correct, I wouldn't have said it. So, are you asking me if what I said is correct, or if I believe it is correct?

I think that's what we are here to figure out, so how about putting a little more meat on the bones of your posts? I can't see how you even have the patience to copy and paste twenty quotes of mine only to respond to them with a line or two. Surely that can't be fun.

I need to feel you out so I know where you put your chips. What are you, Pubs? Gimme your favorite philosophers and I'll know everything about you. Then we can get down to business because I'll have a target.

There is a chapter missing from Plato's dialogues where I argue with Socrates and win, but they cut it our for publicity reasons.

Nevermind that. So you like capitalism, fast cars, and windy walks through the park. You also like "subjectivism" and you think all values are meaningless. What else?

Publius

29th March 2006, 01:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 11:05 PM

Pubs, I can't do anything with what you give me because your style of responding is tedious. If you reply to a paragraph I wrote with a simple:

"Is it?"

How else am I to respond to tendentious opinions?

The 'Is it' in question is in response to a statement by you that I thought completely ignored the previous thread of the debate.

You simply reiterated your point while wholly ignoring mine.

Of course. I want to build a house of certain specifications. I have two hammers before me. Which ever hammer is the most productive and efficient in building that house is the better of the two.

One, I think the entire debate sort of lost it's way in our hammer example.

Two, I think that this particular example was poor because neither I nor you know of any particular way in which one hammer is better than another.

To summarize, when you mrely restate your original premise, I'm going to ask for explanation/clarification.

...you are asking me twice if I meant what I said. If I didn't atleast think what I said was correct, I wouldn't have said it. So, are you asking me if what I said is correct, or if I believe it is correct?

I'm asking you to better explain your position, not merely restate your orgininal point, the very point I'm contesting.

I think that's what we are here to figure out, so how about putting a little more meat on the bones of your posts? I can't see how you even have the patience to copy and paste twenty quotes of mine only to respond to them with a line or two. Surely that can't be fun.

I can't imagine how I could more fully develop the point that I disagree with your opinion and that I see no point in fully responding to brandishments of your original position.

Re-reading my post, I see that most of my one-line responses were full justified and easily encapsulated my point.

I can't see the purpose in writing a paragraph when a sentence will suffice. Brevity. Economy.

Furthermore, most of my individual responses were restatements of the same thing (My position), so fully fleshing out what I fleshed out above would be pointless.

I need to feel you out so I know where you put your chips. What are you, Pubs?

Savant.

Gimme your favorite philosophers and I'll know everything about you.

Dostoevsky, minus the whole 'God' thing.

I haven't read much philosophy.

I know about the major philosophers, but I haven't read them.

Adam Smith, John Locke, Ricardo, et al. would be the forerunners of my thoughts on most issues.

Then we can get down to business because I'll have a target.

Perhaps not.

I've forumulated a lot of this stuff on my own.

Take that for what you will.

There is a chapter missing from Plato's dialogues where I argue with Socrates and win, but they cut it our for publicity reasons.

Indeed, I was the one who cut it out.

Nevermind that. So you like capitalism, fast cars, and windy walks through the park.

On rainy days.

Love rainy days.

You also like "subjectivism"

But is that like only my subjective opinion...

and you think all values are meaningless.

All values except my own of course.

My values rule.

What else?

I enjoy fine literature, namely Dostoevsky, I enjoy the sciences, the arts, the Economist magazine; I enjoy my own brand of witty, sardonic humor and cunningly biting repartes, fine music -- primarily late 70s punk and early 80s post punk-- masturbation (A half-serious (Read: serious) Joycean reference, like my long sentence (Hitchens reference, about a Joyce reference, inside a vague Joyce reference. Triple world score (Scrabble reference).).) and parentheses.

You?

Note: That sentence is an example of my cunning literary talent and razor sharp humor.

Note: I also like notes.

Publius

29th March 2006, 01:58

If I have a car and it needs a repair job, there are only two outcomes to what can happen. Either the car remains broken, or it gets fixed. The objective for the service of having it fixed is to get it fixed as "cheap" as possible, and the "fixed car" is an objective thing, that is, there is no subjective conception of the objective-- there is no degree of the "fixed car." The middle is excluded, there is no "almost fixed." Also, the "costs," although part of the objective, are not neccessary to the objective and only contingent-- the market context of competition and the differences in prices.

The hammer can be compared like this. The use of the hammer and the appearance of the hammer are exclusive qualities. The weight, if it is determined to be more efficient in achieving the end of its use, would obviously be part of the objective definition of "the best hammer."

But the "best hammer" would not be the hammer that does the job the fastest because there is no quota involved where the objective definition for the "best hammer" is simply the hammer that lasts the longest and with the most durability. Only if there is a competitive quota caused from a deadline, which is of course is a consequence of the market, can the definition of "best hammer" be subjective, and which would have nothing to do with the hammer but rather the worker who used it.

The appearance, obviously, would be irrelevent to its objective also, but can have an aesthetic value, however that is a different value altogether, and must be considered seperately from the objective defintion.

You ask if people have a preference or if they really care. Sure they do, but often the preferences are results of extraneous novel qualities.

For example, the only instance where there is a "subjective" opinion present in a judgement about a product or utility is when there is a variation within a genre and a aesthetic evaluation is made: "the red car looks cooler." Here, one can easily mistake this contingent description as a necessary part of the definition of objectivity for the function of the car. While there is a preference in this judgement, it does not reduce the value of the car to a subjective opinion where the car performs a function that is not affected by such extraneous qualties.

Does a red cool car do a better job at driving from point A to point B, or driving the speed limit, or hauling cargo, or transporting people? I wouldn't think so. So the only absolute characteristic of the car is the quality that the genre itself has, and is therefore the objective criteria.

Alright, better response, but I still find problems.

Namely:
The hammer can be compared like this. The use of the hammer and the appearance of the hammer are exclusive qualities. The weight, if it is determined to be more efficient in achieving the end of its use, would obviously be part of the objective definition of "the best hammer."

This is very hard to quantify; I doubt anyone ever logically goes through this process, which sort of make the (Austere) point moot.

THere almost certainly is an optimal weight for a hammer for each individual user, and also for the population as a whole, but people really don't base their hammer-purchasing criteria on a cost-benefit analysis of the particular hammer; they just buy a hammer, quite probably for aesthetic reasons, at least partially.

But the "best hammer" would not be the hammer that does the job the fastest because there is no quota involved where the objective definition for the "best hammer" is simply the hammer that lasts the longest and with the most durability. Only if there is a competitive quota caused from a deadline, which is of course is a consequence of the market, can the definition of "best hammer" be subjective, and which would have nothing to do with the hammer but rather the worker who used it.

THe 'competitive quota' isn't a function of the market, it's a market representation of a basic underlying fact, namely that work should be done as expediently as possible, that time is money.

Spending twice as long to improve something 10% is generally not a good investment.

Under your economic system, how would you properly balance the time spent producing? No perfect equilibria exist, the quest is to find which imperfect equilibria best corresponds to the rest of the market.

Hammers dont' need to be great, only 'good enough' is the point here.

You ask if people have a preference or if they really care. Sure they do, but often the preferences are results of extraneous novel qualities.

Value judgement.

'Extreneous'? If people thought these 'novel qualities' extreneous, they would purchase hammers that didn't exemplify them; plain wooden hammers instead of pretty yellow and black ones.

But clearly markets exist for both, proving that people do prefer pretty hammers and other people prefer unadorned ones; neither is 'more correct'.

Each hammer clearly best fills the intent of the purchaser, relative to the other hammer; if it didn't, they wouldn't have purchased that particular hammer.

Does a red cool car do a better job at driving from point A to point B, or driving the speed limit, or hauling cargo, or transporting people? I wouldn't think so. So the only absolute characteristic of the car is the quality that the genre itself has, and is therefore the objective criteria.

Again, not relevent.

The 'red car' is clearly the car the person wants.

It's redness in no way detracts from it's use, it doesn't prevent you from buying a more utilitarian car; it can only serve to better please the purchaser.

Your position, which I think is absurd, is that people having red cars are somehow taking something away from people who don't?

The 'objective criteria' might be picking up chicks, looking cool, etc.

Some of my friends have (Nice) red cars. Riding aroudn in them is fun, as is racing in them.

I myself view this sort of thing as superflous; I won't buy one.

But thanks to market choice, we are both happier.

Clever. But look closer. If hammers are intended to be used as door-stops, the majority of hammers wouldn't be used to pound nails (we are talking about a carpenter's hammer here), but not because they can't or shouldn't be used as door-stops...only because any other function that the hammer could be used for is already covered by something that is intended for it-- in this case a manufactured door-stop. Likewise, even though I can comb my hair with a hammer, I am making an exception to the rule of its intention. The hammer isn't made to be sold as a comb or a door stop, and it does a better job at building a house than a brass weight or comb would do. If this was not the case, I doubt I would ever choose a hammer to brush my teeth with.

True, but aesthetics, art, is different.

People find art in dressing up toilets and putting them in their yards, for instance.

I don't think we need to delve into that discusion...

Sure, its a consensus fallacy, but you can't expect me to believe that an economy would continue to exist where hammers were suddenly bought to be used as door-stops. And even if it did, the function would then take on a new objective definition in part (could this be a kind of Hegelian "product dialectic" of synthesis!?). Now, the objective definition of "the best hammer" concerns the efficiency of stopping-doors and building houses. My god, I might be on to something.

I note that the absurdity of this point seems minor compared to the absurdity of people hoarding child's dolls, or trading baseball cards, or engaging in a market for tulips, all stupid things, all presumably uses of the particular items that are extrenous.

'Cardboard should be used for boxes, not cards' for example.

The fact remains that people enjoy this supposedly uneconomical purposes, and since the role of an economy is to serve people's needs AND wants...

Kidding. I think you got me, Pubs. I'll give you that one. But I did a better job at working out your argument than you did. You owe me.

The use of it as art is another matter. All things have artistic value but these are subjective preferences that are excluded from the function of the object if it isn't a deliberate production of art itself. In other words, if you hang a hammer on the wall to look at, you could call it art, but the things which you admire about it, its aesthetic features, do not affect its function if it were used to build a house; the "ugly" hammer does as good as the "pretty" hammer.

And so it does.

But many people prefer one over the other, none the less, so the fact that you, logically, right is again, moot.

Human behavior and human whims are often 'illogical', but they are not wrong.

That is key.

Epoche

29th March 2006, 17:18

Pubs, we're starting over and we're going to cut the gristle away as we go.

No, the 'life activity' was purchased long ago, by wages.

Your employer buys your time.

You're obfuscating the issue.

How are those wages that are paid to workers produced? By selling products made by the workers....not necessarily his workers...but workers somewhere getting paid wages to make the products that another capitalist will buy. So you "buy" the machination, which is built by wage workers, that I will use to create products that you will sell to consumers, and then you pay me for doing it.

So I work in a factory that you "bought." You bought that factory with your capital..it was an "investement." You hire me to use that factory to make products which you will then sell. You pay me a wage which is less than the price that you will charge for the product I made by using your factory, which was built by wage workers.

Now I ask, where are you, as the "capitalist," in this equation? Nowhere. You are doing absolutely nothing. You are a "middle" man in a process that does not require you at all to function. Did you get a look at that comic strip one of the comrades posted a few days ago? I'll summarize it for you.

You pay me ten dollars a day. In one day I make a product that you sell for twenty. Now, while it appears that you are "paying me," in reality I am paying you ten dollars to beat me with a whip. How? Because what I made cost twenty dollars, and if you own it, but are also paying me a wage to make it, ...I am paying you the difference so that you will allow me to make the product that is sold by you.

If you didn't exist, I wouldn't be a wage worker. I would be the means, the function, and the distribution of labour and products made by that labour.

Despite your attempts at describing what is necessary for a market to function, you merely describe the way the market is functioning without any proof that it is necessary. It is one thing to say that a capitalist market can function and another to say that it should function.

Marxist theory describes this kind of market as inevitably doomed, simply because (and this is ironic considering that you call your theory "efficient") it creates a dichotomy between classes: those who "own" the means of production and those who "are" the means of production. This is entirely uneeded for the process of market to occur. Again, you can most certainly say that capitalism is "one way to do it," but you cannot say that "this is the only way it can be done."

No, wealth isn't worth labor, wealth is entirely subjective.

It's worth whatever people say it is. Labor has very little to do with it.

False. You are defining "wealth" as "money." Money is not what a product is worth and "worth" is not what consumers decide. And furthermore, wealth is not "subjective."

A product is the result of the labour forces used to create it and that is what it is worth. It cannot be worth the "market value" because the market value fluctuates depending on the ratios created between the capitalists budgit of what he pays his workers and what he sells the products they make, for. A "car" that I make might be "worth" price X at time Y, and then it might be worth price B at time C, just as my labour force might be worth price X at time Y and price B at time C, but regardless of these fluctuations...the force of labour is the same.

The fluctuations occur because of the market competition.
The market competition occurs because of the capitalist incentive.
The capitalist incentive occurs because of the fluctuation.

This is a circular ball of shit.

"Money" does not exist. It is only a representation of credit and interest. Inflation and deflation is the context of the market while the context of production is always steady. What someone produces will always be the same. What it is "worth" will be determined by a competitive budgit. It is yet another vicious circle:

Capitalist: "Hey Capitalist number two, why do you have to charge so little for your products? You're making me lose all my customers!"

Capitalist #2: "Hey Capitalist number three, why do you have to charge so little for your products? You're making me lose all my customers!"

Capitalist #3: "Hey Capitalist number four, etc,. etc."

Ad infinitem...

I have said it until I was blue in the face, and I want you to frame the following statement over your mantle:

Capitalism creates the dilemmas it then uses to justify the necessity of its own existence; it makes the problems that it says is what causes the need for Capitalism.

The Capitalist, this "middle man," will become extinct. Any last words?

Selling something isn't 'inflating' its value, because its value is subjective by its very nature.

Selling a product for more than the price of the labour paid to make it is inflating its value. The "value" is not what the product is worth by its popularity in the market because the market shuffles while the labour force remains. A customer who does business directly with a wage worker would not be subjected to a fluctuation of pricing because the wage worker is not competing with another wage worker. Only in the hands of the capitalist, and the arena of the market, do products change value, and this is directly related to the element of competition and the endless need of capitalism to produce more with less and less time and effort. What you call "subjective value" is nothing more than this logical consequence of wanting to purchase more products and spend less money. A hammer sold by capitalist #1 is only more valuable if that same hammer is sold by capitalist #2 for a higher price. Get rid of the capitalist and products no longer compete; there is no more "subjectively valued price."

Is selling something below cost 'deflating value'? Selling at cost staying absolutely value neutral? Clearly not, because if it was 'value neutral', no one would ever make a market decision.

A non-existent problem. As I told you before, if a price is downsized it is a temporary strategy to gain back business. A capitalist only lowers his prices if he has developed a surplus or because of the threat of another capitalist taking his business away by selling products for cheaper. Inflation and deflation are all market contexts and therefore result in competing values.

I don't think you realize the economic implications of what you're saying.

Nor do I. What I do know, however, is that capitalism has not proven that it must exist. I do not need a replacement economic system to determine this much. I say blow it all up and start from scratch.

"I'll trade you my hammer, that I don't need but you do, for your shovel, that you don't need but I do" is an example of 'exploitation?

Insane.

Certainly not, because neither the hammer or the shovel were products created by wage workers. Here you have a a communal effort to trade resources. We did it this way for thousands of years before money and private enterprise was invented.

Why must all Marxist talk with like third rate philosophers?

Because Marxists know that philosophy is dogmatic crap and often get a kick out of talking like one. Twentieth century philosophical vocabulary is a historical contingency. Material economy is a necessity. One can "say" anything they want, but historical materialism occurs regardless of what is said. The first "philosopher" was a guy dressed in a toga who thought he could talk his way out of working. This originated the sophist movement which in turn created the "intellectual caste" system which pretended that it was a government. None of it was necessary. The worker is the world. He owns everything. "Rulers" are a cancer to economy.

I don't yet want to move into a heavy debate concerning my theory of aesthetics, values, and the nature of subjective/objective truths. We'll get to that later if I'm still inspired, which is not something I can promise.

You need to convince me that Capitalism must exist for humanities evolution. If you are a nihilist, which according to what I've seen so far, you are and probably don't know it, then it is pointless to argue with you. Your statement "only my values matter" can be deconstructed into nothingness. There are a million and one ways to take it apart, and Locke's empiricism will not save you.

Publius

29th March 2006, 21:25

How are those wages that are paid to workers produced? By selling products made by the workers....not necessarily his workers...but workers somewhere getting paid wages to make the products that another capitalist will buy. So you "buy" the machination, which is built by wage workers, that I will use to create products that you will sell to consumers, and then you pay me for doing it.

So I work in a factory that you "bought." You bought that factory with your capital..it was an "investement." You hire me to use that factory to make products which you will then sell. You pay me a wage which is less than the price that you will charge for the product I made by using your factory, which was built by wage workers.

Now I ask, where are you, as the "capitalist," in this equation? Nowhere. You are doing absolutely nothing. You are a "middle" man in a process that does not require you at all to function. Did you get a look at that comic strip one of the comrades posted a few days ago? I'll summarize it for you.

Director.

There is more to this than simply 'making products'. Products have to be made in relation to other products, in relation to demand, in relation to supply, they have to be made at a specific cost, etc.

There is more to an economy than simple physical labor: there is information.

Information, knowledge, is what you (And all communists) ignore.

Prices form a system for sending and receiving signals about supply and demand; an economy cannot function without these signals.

It is thus the job of management to direct these resources, to read these signals and to make decisions regarding them.

Their efficacy is not relevent, only their purpose.

You pay me ten dollars a day. In one day I make a product that you sell for twenty. Now, while it appears that you are "paying me," in reality I am paying you ten dollars to beat me with a whip. How? Because what I made cost twenty dollars, and if you own it, but are also paying me a wage to make it, ...I am paying you the difference so that you will allow me to make the product that is sold by you.

Facile word twisting.

What you made cost whatever raw materials went into producing, plus what you accepted to assemble it.

After you're done making it and take your hands off it, he can sell it for 1 dollar or a million; nothing fundamental changes.
How is someone being paid 10 dollars to make a VCR OK, but someone making 10 dollars to make a VCR that is sold at profit not ok?

THe labor is the same, the product is the same, so how is it fundamentally different?

This grossly simplifies many important points though, namely that profit is a consequence of investment, and that without profit investment wouldn't occur.

Why risk losing money when you have no chance of recouping it?

If you didn't exist, I wouldn't be a wage worker. I would be the means, the function, and the distribution of labour and products made by that labour.

The factory wouldn't exist if the owner did not deign to produce it.

YOur labor is thus insignificant. Your labor is no different from anyone elses labor; it's not scarce, thus it has little value.

Labor isn't worth much, necessarily.

Despite your attempts at describing what is necessary for a market to function, you merely describe the way the market is functioning without any proof that it is necessary. It is one thing to say that a capitalist market can function and another to say that it should function.

Is/Ought problem, I guess.

Tell me, how would a market function without prices?

Hayek said it couldn't.

It's something I'd like to study.

Marxist theory describes this kind of market as inevitably doomed, simply because (and this is ironic considering that you call your theory "efficient") it creates a dichotomy between classes: those who "own" the means of production and those who "are" the means of production. This is entirely uneeded for the process of market to occur. Again, you can most certainly say that capitalism is "one way to do it," but you cannot say that "this is the only way it can be done."

Collective production could occur, but it would be almost assuredly inferior.

It's impossible to see any real move towards risk or investment.

False. You are defining "wealth" as "money."

It serves well enough in our society.

Money is not what a product is worth and "worth" is not what consumers decide.

Something is worth whatever people decide it's worth. End of story.

Unless you're proclaiming some sort of objective, overarching morality/metaphysic that directly contradicts materialism.

IF these rules are not 'etched by God', then they are not 'Objective'; if they are not objective, they are subjective.

Surely you're not going to appeal to an objective morality?

And furthermore, wealth is not "subjective."

Wealth as in 'things', no, wealth as in 'worth', yes.

A product is the result of the labour forces used to create it and that is what it is worth.

Nonsense.

That product would not exist without:

Labor
Invention of the product
Invention of the method of production
Invention of proper tools
Natural Resources
Investment in a factory
Incentive for investor to take risk
Sufficient consumer demand (Mostly)
Relative lack of competition (Often)

and numerous other factors that I'm leaving out.

'Labor' is at best a small part, and at worst nearly insignificant.

Furthermore, how can you possibly ascribe a value to 'labor force'? Any value ascribed to this would be necessarily subjective, and so we would be no better off than before, we'd be wallowing in a mire of utter subjectivity.

It cannot be worth the "market value" because the market value fluctuates depending on the ratios created between the capitalists budgit of what he pays his workers and what he sells the products they make, for. A "car" that I make might be "worth" price X at time Y, and then it might be worth price B at time C, just as my labour force might be worth price X at time Y and price B at time C, but regardless of these fluctuations...the force of labour is the same.

Exactly.

And so you can see that the force of labor is either a very small part of the price or a totally insignificant part of the price.

That car is sold for whatever price someone buys it for; it is thus worth, to that person, what he's willing to spend.

THat worth changes per person; it's subjective.

Your labor is as valuable as the capitalist says it is. He may overpay you or underpay you, but in neither case is he exploiting you.

And again, if this were the case, if he paid you more than he sold the product for, you would be exploiting him, which is an unrealistic application of the theory. It's a contradiction.

The fluctuations occur because of the market competition.

They occur because of supply/demand.

These principals have nothing to do with a market.

The market competition occurs because of the capitalist incentive.

Production itself occurs as a result of incentive.

The capitalist incentive occurs because of the fluctuation.

Somewhat, perhaps, but an oversimplification.

This is a circular ball of shit.

Nope.

"Money" does not exist. It is only a representation of credit and interest.

Which are in turn representations of human action, of risk.

Inflation and deflation is the context of the market while the context of production is always steady.

I don't follow...

Production exists only to serve people's (Consumer's) wants. Production is then never steady.

Inflation and deflation the result of changes in supply and demand, and of people's perception.

What someone produces will always be the same. What it is "worth" will be determined by a competitive budgit. It is yet another vicious circle:

Capitalist: "Hey Capitalist number two, why do you have to charge so little for your products? You're making me lose all my customers!"

Capitalist #2: "Hey Capitalist number three, why do you have to charge so little for your products? You're making me lose all my customers!"

Capitalist #3: "Hey Capitalist number four, etc,. etc."

Ad infinitem...

Except that the process isn't infinite, which sort of makes the example fall on its face.

I mean, everything doesn't cost .01 cent does it?

THere's an equilibrim between cost/profit and price/demand.

I have said it until I was blue in the face, and I want you to frame the following statement over your mantle:

Capitalism creates the dilemmas it then uses to justify the necessity of its own existence; it makes the problems that it says is what causes the need for Capitalism.

The Capitalist, this "middle man," will become extinct. Any last words?

Hayek was right: http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html

Selling a product for more than the price of the labour paid to make it is inflating its value. The "value" is not what the product is worth by its popularity in the market because the market shuffles while the labour force remains. A customer who does business directly with a wage worker would not be subjected to a fluctuation of pricing because the wage worker is not competing with another wage worker.

If there were more than one wage worker, he would be.

Prices would again be lowered because of supply/demand.

Only in the hands of the capitalist, and the arena of the market, do products change value, and this is directly related to the element of competition and the endless need of capitalism to produce more with less and less time and effort. What you call "subjective value" is nothing more than this logical consequence of wanting to purchase more products and spend less money. A hammer sold by capitalist #1 is only more valuable if that same hammer is sold by capitalist #2 for a higher price. Get rid of the capitalist and products no longer compete; there is no more "subjectively valued price."

It's not capitalism's need to produce more for less, it's human desire to have more for less.

"Gee, I'd rather be poor than rich"

"Gee, I'd rather work 18 hours than six"

Absurdity.

What if a hammer produced by worker 1 were sold less than worker 2?

Tell me, if you build your own object and sell it, how do you determine it's objective value?

What's the value of the labor I spent typing this post? How could I possibly know that?

A non-existent problem.

Logic should extend to theories.

As I told you before, if a price is downsized it is a temporary strategy to gain back business.

But you're missing the key: THe worker that produces the X-Box isn't the one he later gets exploited, that'd be the person who writes the games.

THe total 'exploitation' may stay the same, but it presuambly gets shifted around so that the X-Box producer is actually now the exploiter of the situation.

This presumably adds to the exploitation of the game maker though, which I find even MORE absurd, that negative exploitation somehwere else in the web can over-exploit another person who had nothing to do with the original case of exploitation.

It's insanity.

Quantify the value of an object for me.

That should be out test here.

Either tell me that exact value of an object, or tell me how to go about finding it.

Without that, I'm either going to assume there is no objective value, or that is unknowable, which amounts to the same things.

A capitalist only lowers his prices if he has developed a surplus or because of the threat of another capitalist taking his business away by selling products for cheaper. Inflation and deflation are all market contexts and therefore result in competing values.

I don't see how this follows at all.

Inflation and deflation have nothing to do with it.

Nor do I. What I do know, however, is that capitalism has not proven that it must exist. I do not need a replacement economic system to determine this much. I say blow it all up and start from scratch.

And we'll invariably come back to these stage, due to cultural evolution (Another Hayeken concept).

Certainly not, because neither the hammer or the shovel were products created by wage workers. Here you have a a communal effort to trade resources. We did it this way for thousands of years before money and private enterprise was invented.

And we shit in the dirt for thousands of years before private enterprise; so what?

Because Marxists know that philosophy is dogmatic crap and often get a kick out of talking like one. Twentieth century philosophical vocabulary is a historical contingency. Material economy is a necessity. One can "say" anything they want, but historical materialism occurs regardless of what is said. The first "philosopher" was a guy dressed in a toga who thought he could talk his way out of working. This originated the sophist movement which in turn created the "intellectual caste" system which pretended that it was a government. None of it was necessary. The worker is the world. He owns everything. "Rulers" are a cancer to economy.

'The worker owns everything'?

I would argue that the worker owns nothing of intrinsic value.

You need to convince me that Capitalism must exist for humanities evolution. If you are a nihilist, which according to what I've seen so far, you are and probably don't know it, then it is pointless to argue with you.

I wouldn't consider myself a nihilist, per se, but I'm not averse to the label.

I don't think it's accurate.

I don't really ascribe to any named philosophy, I just pick the stuff that makes sense.

'Cultural evolutionist' should perhaps be my philosophical title, becuase I like Hayek, Dawkins and Pinker.

Your statement "only my values matter" can be deconstructed into nothingness. There are a million and one ways to take it apart, and Locke's empiricism will not save you.

I was being partially fecetious.

cyu

30th March 2006, 02:02

It is thus the job of management to direct these resources, to read these signals and to make decisions regarding them.

Nothing's wrong with that, as long as their decisions will benefit the employees of the company, and not just themselves. What better way to ensure that than to make the process democratic?

The factory wouldn't exist if the owner did not deign to produce it.

Actually, the factory wouldn't exist without the actual builders of the factory. The owner can't just go into the middle of a field and say, "Let there be factory!" and one will pop into existence. In a capitalist system, the role the owner plays is just to allocate the resources needed for the building of the factory to take place. The owner could easily be replaced by a democratic process, where the people of the area allocate the resources. The result would be much more likely to benefit the local population than having one person make the decisions. That's one of the reasons democratic countries tend to benefit their citizens more than autocratic ones.

Epoche

31st March 2006, 18:47

Publius Savantas Maximus:

There is more to this than simply 'making products'. Products have to be made in relation to other products, in relation to demand, in relation to supply, they have to be made at a specific cost, etc.

That "relation to other products" is manufactured just like the products themselves. Economic relations are not seperate axioms...they don't operate by a different logic. Making and relation are the same.

"Demand and supply" are also part of this dynamic. But what is not part of this, and which makes a confused mess out of it all, is this "have to be made at a specific cost."

Now watch. If when you say "costs," you are refering to anything in that dynamic, the material conditions of production, relation, demand, and supply, you are not refering to anything that is directly dependent on a capitalism.

In other words, what something "costs" has nothing to do with its neccessity as a commodity. To imply a "cost" is to imply a value that is relative, in this case to competitive market, and therefore it is not a part of the necessary structures of the economic system. Capitalism is an uneeded addition to material economy.

When you say "costs" you introduce a contingency into the scheme. "Making products" is all that has ever and will ever be the activity of man. Something such as "costs" is not necessary. It is a concept that only exists in capitalism.

There is more to an economy than simple physical labor: there is information.

Information, knowledge, is what you (And all communists) ignore.

Prices form a system for sending and receiving signals about supply and demand; an economy cannot function without these signals.

It is thus the job of management to direct these resources, to read these signals and to make decisions regarding them.

Their efficacy is not relevent, only their purpose.

All economy is physical labour. Thinking is, to a degree, labouring. I don't see your point. Do you think that communism wishes to reduce everyone down to a brick mason with a bologna sandwich? If so, you got the wrong communism, Pubs.

How is someone being paid 10 dollars to make a VCR OK, but someone making 10 dollars to make a VCR that is sold at profit not ok?

Its not a matter of being "okay." It is a matter of being uneccessary. (CYU explains this perfectly in his last post.)

A capitalist is a guy who appropriates the means of production to create production to generate a profit. Like this:

Capitalist1 buys a fifty dollar machine that spins yarn from Capitalist2 who paid workers ten dollars to make. Capitalist2 makes a fourty dollar profit from the sales.

Capitalist1 pays workers ten dollars a day to spin yarn on fifty dollar machine. In one day fifty dollars worth of yarn is spun and sold. Capitalist1 is now ten dollars away from paying for his machine.

If Capitalist1 didn't exist to buy the machine, and capitalist2 didn't exist to sell the machine, there would be eighty dollars to distribute among the workers, or, the machine wouldn't be an object of "sales" because there would be no private ownership. Remember, it is only when capitalists compete that the need to economize, produce more in less time for cheaper wage requirements, takes place.

When someone intends to make a profit, they must inflate the value of what something costs to what it doesn't cost, so that there is a margin-- a profit or interest. Capitalist1 and Capitalist2 had to do this in order to make a profit. But neither of them participate in the labour of that production, so they are extraneous to the process of that production.

When I build a house, somebody buys it. But they don't buy it from me, the guy who built it. They buy it from the guy who works for the guy who works for the guy who owns the company. Between me and the buyer, there are several "middle positions" which are arranged on a payroll, each getting a percent of commision or salary. Because of this hierarchy, the price must be inflated to cover the cost demands. Everybody in the middle gets a piece of this pie. But only two parties are involved in the exchange-- the worker and the consumer.

If these positions were eliminated, not only would I, the worker, get paid more, but the buyer would spend less to purchase the house.

p.s. My posts are shorter because your's are skinny. Too much space and not enough said....more like a twenty-questions game or something.

Epoche

31st March 2006, 19:16

Publius

31st March 2006, 20:03

I just noticed this:

QUOTE

There is a chapter missing from Plato's dialogues where I argue with Socrates and win, but they cut it our for publicity reasons.

"Indeed, I was the one who cut it out."

That's funny, Pubs, but only if you intended it. "Publiuscity." Get it?

Don't lie to me, man. Was that pun intentional or did you just happen to respond in a way that might lead me to one such consequential conclusion?

If you did it on purpose, my compliments to you, sir. That was clever.

Shit, that was clever.

I wish I would have thought of that...

I mean, I did think of that!

Actually, it was accidental (Not the same level of wordplay. Joyce, I am not.) or at least, subconcious.

But for reference, I am that witty.

Publius

31st March 2006, 22:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 06:56 PM

Publius Savantas Maximus:

I like it.

That "relation to other products" is manufactured just like the products themselves. Economic relations are not seperate axioms...they don't operate by a different logic. Making and relation are the same.

"Demand and supply" are also part of this dynamic. But what is not part of this, and which makes a confused mess out of it all, is this "have to be made at a specific cost."

Now watch. If when you say "costs," you are refering to anything in that dynamic, the material conditions of production, relation, demand, and supply, you are not refering to anything that is directly dependent on a capitalism.

See, this is something we aren't likely to rectify.

You accept it, as Marxist, that these things are the result of capitalism.

I accept it, as a capitalist, that these things are a result of human action, independent of a social system; they represent in capitalism, underlying human behavior.

Proving cause and effect her is nearly impossible; do people want televisions, that is, the entertainment they provide, or does capitalism induce this want? Is it a combination of both factors?

I can't see us ever resolving this issue with wholly changing our stance.

In other words, what something "costs" has nothing to do with its neccessity as a commodity. To imply a "cost" is to imply a value that is relative, in this case to competitive market, and therefore it is not a part of the necessary structures of the economic system. Capitalism is an uneeded addition to material economy.

When you say "costs" you introduce a contingency into the scheme. "Making products" is all that has ever and will ever be the activity of man. Something such as "costs" is not necessary. It is a concept that only exists in capitalism.

'Cost' represents, basically, an investment, be it in time or resources.

Cost is used to compare the value, labor, resources, etc. used in various products, in an effort to meet supply and demand.

All of these things exist outside of capitalism.

Whether there is a price on a product or not, it still costs the same to make it, in resources, time, and most importantly, in oppurtunity cost, or time NOT spent doing something else.

Cost also represents risk, investment, time preference and numerous other things that are more deeply entreched in capitalism. I intentionally left them out of my original statement, because you'd disagree with them, as a matter of premise.

All economy is physical labour.

No it isn't.

That's a pointlessly simplified explanation, akin to 'all labor is vibration, because all the particles comprising workers are vibrating'.

The fact that commodities are created by labor does not mean that the economy itself is nothing but physical labor.

If we produce a thousand of product X, and nobody wants product X, our labor was uneconomical; a waste.

It would have been more economical to *not produce* the product.

So at the very least an economy is production and non-production. To further explain, an economy is way of determining what is to be produced and what is not to be produced.

If your labor produces something bad, or something nobody wants, it's uneconomical; more uneconomical than not producing anything at all.

Labor, in and of itself, is worthless. It has to be directed to meet subjective wants to have any essential value.

And once you temper the market to subjective wants you temper production, thus labor, to subjective wants, thus labor is now subjective.

Labor, as in work, is 'objective', and its value is 'objective' too: Nothing.

But labor, meaningfully defined as production of things people want, is different. What's important is not the act of labor itself, but the serving of wants.

Your labor is not the objective production of a commodity, per se, it's the subjective fullfilment of another person's want or desire.

You're not working to produce a product, you're producing to satiate another person's subjective want.

Seperating subjective want from labor leaves with nothing meaningful.

Communism, as you've portrayed it, does nothing to match up wants with production, because if it did, it would be a market, something anti-communistic and capitalistic in nature.

Communism is then a contradiction.

Its not a matter of being "okay." It is a matter of being uneccessary. (CYU explains this perfectly in his last post.)

A capitalist is a guy who appropriates the means of production to create production to generate a profit. Like this:

Capitalist1 buys a fifty dollar machine that spins yarn from Capitalist2 who paid workers ten dollars to make. Capitalist2 makes a fourty dollar profit from the sales.

Capitalist1 pays workers ten dollars a day to spin yarn on fifty dollar machine. In one day fifty dollars worth of yarn is spun and sold. Capitalist1 is now ten dollars away from paying for his machine.

If Capitalist1 didn't exist to buy the machine, and capitalist2 didn't exist to sell the machine, there would be eighty dollars to distribute among the workers, or, the machine wouldn't be an object of "sales" because there would be no private ownership. Remember, it is only when capitalists compete that the need to economize, produce more in less time for cheaper wage requirements, takes place.

This assumes that people would, for no apparent reason, produce these means of production.

Out of the blue someone will say "I should build a steel factory"?

What incentive is there to produce new means of production? How do you even know what means to produce?

You clearly don't understand how value is created, or rather, not created.

That $80 dollars wasn't and isn't just sitting around. That value was created when people traded.

If I want something you have and you want something I have, and we trade, we both gain value; value is created.

Your math is correct; your understanding of how an economy actually works is not.

With no way of keeping track of costs/losses, an economy cannot hope to function.

With no incentive to produce new means of production, an economy cannot function.

With no way for signals to be distributed, an economy cannot function.

The problem is, all my argumentation assumes you accept market actions as valid in the first place, which you don't.

I can see no way around this problem.

When someone intends to make a profit, they must inflate the value of what something costs to what it doesn't cost, so that there is a margin-- a profit or interest.

There's no 'inflation' of the value at all.

If you accept the price, you clearly don't think it is inflated.

If you did, you wouldn't accept.

They are increasing the price to create value for themselves, which, though you don't realize it, creates value, it doesn't 'inflate' it.

If you're willing to pay the extra money, than you desire that money less than you desire to the product, so the money has moved to a more economically advantageous position; the person who wants it more got it.

But again, this will doubtlessly fall of deaf ears.

Capitalist1 and Capitalist2 had to do this in order to make a profit. But neither of them participate in the labour of that production, so they are extraneous to the process of that production.

Perhaps.

But they are vital to other steps of production and, more importantly, allocation.

When I build a house, somebody buys it. But they don't buy it from me, the guy who built it. They buy it from the guy who works for the guy who works for the guy who owns the company. Between me and the buyer, there are several "middle positions" which are arranged on a payroll, each getting a percent of commision or salary. Because of this hierarchy, the price must be inflated to cover the cost demands. Everybody in the middle gets a piece of this pie. But only two parties are involved in the exchange-- the worker and the consumer.

Nonsense.

The person who made the bricks, who cut down the trees, the person who grew the food who fed you and the worker, the person who built THAT person's house, ad infitum.

All of these people were involved in the exchange.

It's so much more than 'labor'.

If these positions were eliminated, not only would I, the worker, get paid more, but the buyer would spend less to purchase the house.

So then build your own houses or buy from people who do.

There's no rule that says you need to buy from a giant building contractor.

p.s. My posts are shorter because your's are skinny. Too much space and not enough said....more like a twenty-questions game or something.

It's because I feel as if we've ran through this positions 3 or 4 times already.

Perhaps because we have.

cyu

31st March 2006, 22:57

This assumes that people would, for no apparent reason, produce these means of production.

Out of the blue someone will say "I should build a steel factory"?

What incentive is there to produce new means of production? How do you even know what means to produce?

If a new product is wanted, then that's the incentive. The reason the local population would choose democratically to invest in a new company would be because they see the value to their community resulting from making the new product. Their incentive wouldn't be so they can earn money off the backs of the employees they hope to dominate. It wouldn't be practical trying to control the employees of the new company anyway. If the employees had control over the company, there would be no reason for them to strike.

redstar2000

1st April 2006, 17:54

Originally posted by bloody_capitalist_sham+--> (bloody_capitalist_sham)I was talking to a guy the other day who is on an economics course and he stated that “an efficient market will make everyone equal”.[/b]

In bourgeois ideology, an "efficient market" means, first of all, once that is completely unregulated.

It doesn't quite work out like they say...

San Francisco Chronicle
PG&E forecasts high April gas bills Report by Midwest states says price run-up due to lack of regulation, not lack of supply

With Pacific Gas and Electric Co. forecasting another month of high natural gas bills, some government officials now say speculative investors and lax market regulations have contributed to the fuel's stunning run-up in price....

A recent report commissioned by four Midwestern states argues that supply and demand issues can't explain the increase, or at least not all of it....

Instead, the report blames the marketplace. The natural gas market lacks many of the regulations that apply to other more mundane, less essential commodities, including pork bellies and soybeans, the report said. Lax price-reporting rules, the report argues, leave the market open to manipulation. Speculative money pouring into the market has helped push prices higher. Even after spikes end, the report notes, prices don't seem to fall as far as they rose.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...BUGI6I1L2G1.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/01/BUGI6I1L2G1.DTL)

I wonder if it would be "on the right track" to suggest a kind of "law" here: the older a "free market" economy is, the more regulation it requires in order to "work" efficiently.

It starts out "very efficient" but accumulates "inefficiencies" over time.

Just a hypothesis, of course. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Publius

1st April 2006, 18:23

In bourgeois ideology, an "efficient market" means, first of all, once that is completely unregulated.

It doesn't quite work out like they say...

Not necessarily.

Efficiency is defined as having resources distributed to their most effective uses.

A market is then a means of gauging 'effectiveness' of resources in various tasks.

Whether governement could or is more 'efficient' was a chief debate of the last century. I would that it's settled by now.

Originally posted by San Francisco Chronicle
PG&E forecasts high April gas bills Report by Midwest states says price run-up due to lack of regulation, not lack of supply

With Pacific Gas and Electric Co. forecasting another month of high natural gas bills, some government officials now say speculative investors and lax market regulations have contributed to the fuel's stunning run-up in price....

A recent report commissioned by four Midwestern states argues that supply and demand issues can't explain the increase, or at least not all of it....

Instead, the report blames the marketplace. The natural gas market lacks many of the regulations that apply to other more mundane, less essential commodities, including pork bellies and soybeans, the report said. Lax price-reporting rules, the report argues, leave the market open to manipulation. Speculative money pouring into the market has helped push prices higher. Even after spikes end, the report notes, prices don't seem to fall as far as they rose.

It's very likely that the company enjoys a monopoly or near-monopoly position.

Obviously then prices will rise with little recourse.

Regulation may be in order.

I wonder if it would be "on the right track" to suggest a kind of "law" here: the older a "free market" economy is, the more regulation it requires in order to "work" efficiently.

It starts out "very efficient" but accumulates "inefficiencies" over time.

Just a hypothesis, of course. :)

I think the opposite is true.

Economies as a whole get much more efficient over time for many reasons, namely vertical integration and new technology.

redstar2000

2nd April 2006, 05:49

Originally posted by Publius
Efficiency is defined as having resources distributed to their most effective uses.

Presumably "effective" is defined here as "most productive", right?

Well, there are a lot of obvious examples of unregulated markets failing to allocate resources in a "most effective" way.

Consider the "SUV" for example. :o

Economies as a whole get much more efficient over time for many reasons, namely vertical integration and new technology.

Yes...that's part of the process, to be sure.

But economies generate an aristocracy (for want of a better word)...a very dense and on-going social network of people for whom "efficiency" is not necessarily in their "best interests".

You've heard that old "urban myth", right? Somebody invented an automobile engine that would "run on water"...and the oil companies all got together and bought up the patents and stopped it from ever being manufactured. :lol:

Yeah, that's a myth...but I wonder if things like that would not become typical of an aging "free market" economy.

We do know, as a matter of record, that American auto manufacturers in the 30s and 40s bought up privately-own urban rail transit systems and tore them up to create a market for buses and cars.

As I indicated, I'm simply "throwing out an idea" here...but I wonder what new technologies are sitting in locked file cabinets somewhere...because of the existing investments of our financial oligarchs.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Oh-Dae-Su

2nd April 2006, 08:08

i just have a question, ok i get you guys can only find one bad thing about capitalism which is "distribution", but do you really think that communism is the anwser? you don't think new problems will arise? and if you think everyone will be equal, psss please get a grip of yourselves...

redstar2000

2nd April 2006, 20:57

Free markets produce vast inequality of wealth and, as Marx predicted, the inequality grows larger and larger with the passing of time.

Is that an efficient allocation of human resources?

Does it make sense for the well-being and productivity of the human species to have five billion people living in shit and a few tens of thousands of people with so much wealth that they can't even begin to imagine how to use it productively?

Capitalist ideologues can only say over and over again that "this is how things must be"...with all the coherence of a 17th century feudal aristocrat.

That "lord" really believed that "human nature" demanded a social order divided into those "born superior" and those "born to serve".

Modern apologists for capitalism really believe that humans are "born wealth-creators" and "born consumers". :lol:

We shall see, possibly even in this century, what the "Lords of Capital" look like without their heads.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Capitalist Lawyer

2nd April 2006, 22:19

Does it make sense for the well-being and productivity of the human species to have five billion people living in shit and a few tens of thousands of people with so much wealth that they can't even begin to imagine how to use it productively?

You clearly continue to be confused about capitalism. There is plenty of room for all since with capitalism the pie can and does grow. There's been too many instances of rags to riches stories for it to be the anecdotal evidence that you so despise.

Before you bring up "examples where capitalism has failed" let me assure you that capitalism doesn't exist in Mexico, Argentina ,Haiti, etc... because the free market doesn't exist.

Free markets by definition INCLUDE the protection of property rights. Since corruption is so widespread in those nation, property rights protection doesn't exist and therefore free market capitalism doesn't exist.

Oh-Dae-Su

2nd April 2006, 22:54

redstar how about giving me some evidence? how about giving me evidence about how there is suuuuuuch unequal distribution in Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and im not saying USA and UK because these countries are affected by immigration. But even so, you think the gap between poor and rich as widened or closed in the USA and UK? here read this

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3.htm

the truth about America's poor :

The following facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau are taken from various government reports:

In 1995, 41 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes.

The average home owned by a person classified as "poor" has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Over three-quarters of a million "poor" persons own homes worth over $150,000; and nearly 200,000 "poor" persons own homes worth over $300,000.

Only 7.5 percent of "poor" households are overcrowded. Nearly 60 percent have two or more rooms per person.

The average "poor" American has one-third more living space than the average Japanese does and four times as much living space as the average Russian. 2

Seventy percent of "poor" households own a car; 27 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent have a color television. Nearly half own two or more televisions.

Nearly three-quarters have a VCR; more than one in five has two VCRs.

Two-thirds of "poor" households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Sixty-four percent of the "poor" own microwave ovens, half have a stereo system, and over a quarter have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, the "poor" are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight.

Despite frequent charges of widespread hunger in the United States, 84 percent of the "poor" report their families have "enough" food to eat; 13 percent state they "sometimes" do not have enough to eat, and 3 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children, and in most cases is well above recommended norms.

Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes that are 100 percent above recommended levels.

Most poor children today are in fact super-nourished, growing up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Political.../bg1221tab1.gif (http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/images/bg1221tab1.gif)

Publius

2nd April 2006, 23:28

Presumably "effective" is defined here as "most productive", right?

Maybe.

It's for society to decide and define.

Well, there are a lot of obvious examples of unregulated markets failing to allocate resources in a "most effective" way.

Consider the "SUV" for example. :o

'Most effective' as in fuel economy?

No.

'Most effective' as in allowing people to stroke their egos?

Yes.

People clearly do want to stature associated with SUVs. It's our job then to associate a stigma with them.

Yes...that's part of the process, to be sure.

But economies generate an aristocracy (for want of a better word)...a very dense and on-going social network of people for whom "efficiency" is not necessarily in their "best interests".

Certainly.

You've heard that old "urban myth", right? Somebody invented an automobile engine that would "run on water"...and the oil companies all got together and bought up the patents and stopped it from ever being manufactured. :lol:

Yeah, that's a myth...but I wonder if things like that would not become typical of an aging "free market" economy.

We do know, as a matter of record, that American auto manufacturers in the 30s and 40s bought up privately-own urban rail transit systems and tore them up to create a market for buses and cars.

As I indicated, I'm simply "throwing out an idea" here...but I wonder what new technologies are sitting in locked file cabinets somewhere...because of the existing investments of our financial oligarchs.

It's certainly an interesting question.

But I think destroying the institution of the market itself to deal with this, or any other, problem is counterproductive.

Gravity causes problems, namely falling, yet I would hardly want to abolish it, given the chance.

Publius

2nd April 2006, 23:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:06 PM

Free markets produce vast inequality of wealth and, as Marx predicted, the inequality grows larger and larger with the passing of time.

Is this necessarily a bad thing?

If everyone were rich, is it a sin that some people are 'more rich'?

I don't see how inequality is, in and of itself, a bad thing.

But I also realize that it's wealth inequality, not lack of wealth, that creates envy and violence.

Is that an efficient allocation of human resources?

Does it make sense for the well-being and productivity of the human species to have five billion people living in shit and a few tens of thousands of people with so much wealth that they can't even begin to imagine how to use it productively?

No, no it isn't.

But I know of no other mechanism for allocating resources effectively. One simply does not exist.

The ideal is to pay people in direct proportion to what they produce, that is desirable, useful and 'good' (However we define that), and that makes sure none dies needlessly.

I don't see how communism or anarchism can possibly solve any of these problems.

Capitalism, as it's instituted now, may 'be the problem', but I can tell what you isn't the answer: Marxian communism.

Capitalist ideologues can only say over and over again that "this is how things must be"...with all the coherence of a 17th century feudal aristocrat.

That "lord" really believed that "human nature" demanded a social order divided into those "born superior" and those "born to serve".

Modern apologists for capitalism really believe that humans are "born wealth-creators" and "born consumers". :lol:

We shall see, possibly even in this century, what the "Lords of Capital" look like without their heads.

Maybe.

But I can't help but think there is a better way to allocate resources, in a market, than 'communism'.

Market anarchism, to me, seems nearly as ill-fated and nearly as totalitarian.

The important question, I guess, is does capitalism reward the correct behavior, are the incentives correct? I would say, mostly, yes.

Communism, not at all.

The incentive in communism simply isn't there.

People need to be allowed to be wealthy because many people are deserving of being wealthy, in my opinion.

To summarize: I want to know how a non-capitalist market could work. I've read Parecon and I found it laughable, frankly.

In fact, reading Parecon did more to assuage my fears about capitalism's efficacy than to expand them; I thought it totally farcical.

Does none really have any fucking clue how a non-capitalist economy will/could work? This is the impression I get.

I mean, you don't understand how imminently sensible your starting preposition, that the rich are too rich and that the poor are too poor, is.

None can disagree with that and none does disagree with that (Except for the rich, naturally).

I remain convinced that economics can fix the problems apparent in capitalism through correct use of markets, incentives and discentives, but of course I'm probably biased because I want to be an economist.

Epoche

3rd April 2006, 15:34

The Publinator:

See, this is something we aren't likely to rectify.

You accept it, as Marxist, that these things are the result of capitalism.

I accept it, as a capitalist, that these things are a result of human action, independent of a social system; they represent in capitalism, underlying human behavior.

I hear this all the time and I have yet to understand how and why people define "incentive" the way they do. You, like the others, tend to model human morality around its economical conditions, such that proofs of inherent moral behaviors, this "underlying human behavior," are always evidenced during specific "economical effects." It is my contention that there are several methods for economy while the basic material conditions remain. Our "consumer habits" do not explain our "morals," if we have any, because "morals" cannot be contingent to a capitalistic setting. That is, they must be possible in all kinds of economy since they are based in material reality...a reality that can be formed by various politics.

The evidence that "people like to own stuff," for example, is not necessarily the reason why a capitalism came into existence. Instead you should look at it as if because of the capitalism, people have the ability to own stuff and therefore "human behavior" is conditioned by this.

Seriously, Pubs, define for me what you mean by "incentive." I just don't see much of a difference in the standards for that definition in either the capitalism or the communism. In short, I don't believe the hype about the greatness of capitalism.

Proving cause and effect her is nearly impossible; do people want televisions, that is, the entertainment they provide, or does capitalism induce this want? Is it a combination of both factors?

I think I covered this when I asked if you wanted a kilamantis set. You said "no" because you didn't know what one was. Precisely, because they don't exist. Likewise, products aren't made because people want them...people want what is made and for sale. Everything must be invented...but Edison had no idea that he wanted light until he discovered electricty. Nobody ever said "hey Ben, we want a lightbulb...figure something out."

I can't see us ever resolving this issue with wholly changing our stance.

Why sure we can. You just need a complete philosophical makeover.

'Cost' represents, basically, an investment, be it in time or resources.

Cost is used to compare the value, labor, resources, etc. used in various products, in an effort to meet supply and demand.

All of these things exist outside of capitalism.

Whether there is a price on a product or not, it still costs the same to make it, in resources, time, and most importantly, in oppurtunity cost, or time NOT spent doing something else.

Cost also represents risk, investment, time preference and numerous other things that are more deeply entreched in capitalism. I intentionally left them out of my original statement, because you'd disagree with them, as a matter of premise.

That's right, and I will continue to disagree. My premise is that capitalism introduces activities into economy that are extraneous and troublesome. It is, how shall I say...populating economy with more heads than needed. Its business overkill. The capitalist format for economy is not self evident...it doesn't prove that capitalism must work. It only proves that there are social and economic provileges that can be taken advantage of by distorting the definition of "work" and introducing concepts such as "credit," "money," and "interest." These are not tangible effects of work-- they are not found in the means, the form, or the result of production. The "cost" system is an addition to the formal process of material production. There are many ways to "invent" such things and many ways to use them in concept. But there are not many ways to ritualize economy since very certain processes are always in place. Capitalism can tweak this a bit but it doesn't justify itself for its intrusion.

No it isn't.

That's a pointlessly simplified explanation, akin to 'all labor is vibration, because all the particles comprising workers are vibrating'.

The fact that commodities are created by labor does not mean that the economy itself is nothing but physical labor.

Yes it is. In fact, everything is a form of "work." There is always effort. If you have a "job" then you are working. Even capitalists "work" in the true sense of the word. And economy is physical labor....all of it.

If we produce a thousand of product X, and nobody wants product X, our labor was uneconomical; a waste.

It would have been more economical to *not produce* the product.

So at the very least an economy is production and non-production. To further explain, an economy is way of determining what is to be produced and what is not to be produced.

If your labor produces something bad, or something nobody wants, it's uneconomical; more uneconomical than not producing anything at all.

Labor, in and of itself, is worthless. It has to be directed to meet subjective wants to have any essential value.

But that's a negative. I don't define useless labor as a way to practice economy. I'm counting out the useless holes that are dug with a shovel. If labor is toward the end of "work" in the field of economy it is necessarily useful and not a waste. If I produce a thousand of product X, I wouldn't do so unless there was a forcasted demand, even if it were a bit inaccurate. The point is that efforts of production are not, by themselves, subjective and uneconomical. Job oriented work is economical...personal luxury and labor might or might not be a potential product, and so its irrelevent. One is either "clocked in" or "clocked out." (Except maybe Pubs, who stands with pseudo iron bolshevik determination by the soda machine, mocking the blue-collars who labor harmoniously around him.)

But labor, meaningfully defined as production of things people want, is different. What's important is not the act of labor itself, but the serving of wants.

Your labor is not the objective production of a commodity, per se, it's the subjective fullfilment of another person's want or desire.

You're not working to produce a product, you're producing to satiate another person's subjective want.

Seperating subjective want from labor leaves with nothing meaningful.

Agreed, but you miss the important difference between how communism appropriates this and how capitalism appropriates this. Both system work the same as far as you've explained-- production of commodites is certainly wanted and needed in either. It is only the capitalism that plays off of the consumer field to create unecessary degrees of value (I explained this earler). For example, I might want product X...and as a capitalist you know that. You also know that another capitalist has that product as well, and is selling it for a cheaper price. Because of this, I probably won't buy it from you. To appropriate this situation, you will lower the wages you pay your workers to make product X, and therefore the objective labor has becomes a subjective value-- it becomes contingent to the field of competiiton and costs.

Now, without you or the other capitalist, there would be no emergency to earn the business of the customer, no competition and therefore no fluctuating prices, and no wage bargaining.

Making product X and giving it to a consumer is most certainly an objective task. What is not part of that equation is the differing of degrees of economical efficiency in improvising the competitive setting of the market. If it ever becomes a case of workers providing the same labor to produce a product that is less valuable, and therefore are "paid less," it is because of a contingency created in the uneccessary market. Such an transaction between a producer and a consumer does not require a capitalist.

It isn't because I made X and you want it that there is a problem. It is because the guy who paid me make X for you is trying to make a profit from selling what I make. If another person is doing the same thing, there will be a competition and you might "pay more" for what I made for "lower wages"...and we'd both be pissed at the two of them.

What incentive is there to produce new means of production? How do you even know what means to produce?

This is what I was saying I don't understand. What do you mean by "incentive?" Would there be no ambition to pioneer new technologies in a communism? No ambitions to own a fast car?

The working model of "incentive" that you have here is directly related to the means by which it is expressed in the culture of consumerism. People attribute virtue and material wealth to "the only possible way to progress as an individual." This ambition causes conflict in culture and classes result. People are, in a capitalist culture, "walking products" in the sense that how they derive personal esteem and "honor" is through their consumer habits. It follows that the only incentive that can exist would be the incentive to advance oneself from a lower class-- to aquire a means for more material wealth because that is what is "virtuous." People then compete over images that are in actuality only metaphors of self-esteem-- the "class lifestyle" as it is compared to the life of a homeless man, for example. This is in a sense not a real moral negotiation, that is, it is not an accurate way to describe virtue and self-esteem, because the images or ideas of such are bound to the already established "culture of the classes." It is a circularity that maintains itself indefinitely.

"Incentive" can, in this scenario, be befuddled and self defeating.

There's no 'inflation' of the value at all.

If you accept the price, you clearly don't think it is inflated.

If you did, you wouldn't accept.

They are increasing the price to create value for themselves, which, though you don't realize it, creates value, it doesn't 'inflate' it.

If you're willing to pay the extra money, than you desire that money less than you desire to the product, so the money has moved to a more economically advantageous position; the person who wants it more got it.

I define "inflation" to mean anytime a product is sold for more than what it cost to make. If the third margin of "profit" is introduced into the process, I say that what previously had an objective value is now inflated via this "third leg," and it now is subject to "cost."

Nonsense.

The person who made the bricks, who cut down the trees, the person who grew the food who fed you and the worker, the person who built THAT person's house, ad infitum.

All of these people were involved in the exchange.

It's so much more than 'labor'.

Of course, but again you aren't paying attention. After each material is made by a manufacturer it is sold to a buyer. That "price" is more than what it cost to make. Therefore, the wages of the workers who make the product are subject to become increasingly lower due to the competition in the field. Each time a material is manufactured to be sold to a builder its price is determined by a budgit with the incentive of profit. So, every man from the guy who cut the tree down to the guy who nails the studs is being exploited. No, not because he has to work to make products for consumers, but because he doesn't get the profit that is made buy the guy who employed him. At the top of this pyramid is the outrageous price for the final product, and it is outrageous because it is fitted to consider the margins of profits that must be generated during the several exchanges and phases in selling, purchasing, and appropriating between capitalists.

So then build your own houses or buy from people who do.

There's no rule that says you need to buy from a giant building contractor.

True, but eventually the little fish get swept up in the great wave. A small business owner is subjected to strong competition by bigger companies which, because of production rate, have lower prices for services. The little fish must get bigger if he is to survive, and this pressure is constant.

As a small business owner, I would have to pay wages which I could not afford to pay in order to make a profit which would justify my incentive to start my own business. I'd have to pay my carpenters at scale or they wouldn't work for me. If I paid them at scale, I wouldn't make a profit because I'm a little fish. A catch 22. The growing pangs of the young capitalist are overwhelming.

Epoche

3rd April 2006, 16:58

Consider the "SUV" for example.

Redstar2000, are you refering to the "sport utility vehicle?"

If you are, I think that's funny you should mention such as a bad allocation of resources. I firmly agree and I also find it funny how the market advertises the SUV and the subtle effects of the agendas behind the advertisements.

Not only do we have a vehicle that provides for seventy-five percent of its owners what they don't neccessarily need, as we note that the worst encounter one could have while driving to the office would be a puddle of mud in the parking lot, we also see how the advertisments portray the "type" who would own such a vehicle, the "target consumers," which just so happens to be what seventy-five percent of the buyers are not, as the desired effect of the product they buy-- the "image" of the vehicle and the personality that would drive it.

So essentially the guys who buy SUVs are not buying only SUVs, but they are also buying "the personality of the guys who own the SUV" as it is designed by the advertisement.

Odd how it happens to be what most owners imagine themselves to be, which far exceeds their reality and what they actually need.

Not only is the SUV an excessive bulk of metal for the average consumer, but it is also a representation of an excessive expression of personality type, in this case, the "selling of masculinity" where it is needed.

Consumerism and the semiotics of the industry plots personality evolutions through the products it mediates. This is how and why things go "out of style" not only in utility and basic function, what is needed in a vehicle to drive to work, for instance, but also in personality depiction. Driving to work is now not only getting there, but also a way to showcase one's desired personality while doing it. Humans "use" their pride by advertising what they own, yet what they own expresses a pride that they aquired through the advertisement itself.

A kind of social practicio-inert, as Sartre once called it. Creating problems within a discourse that do not exist so that discourse can be concieved as a progression-from-problems, rather than a contingency.

One would need to buy the SUV to get back what they think they had lost-- masculinity for example. We won't deny that that is what they are selling. We merely need to look at its average owner to find a personality type...to find the target. Would we then believe that they are advocating a personality that isn't desired or needed by consumers? Surely not. So product advertisement must include class advertisement, and it must be plotted so consumers participate in "style" and "trend" activities that are progressive. That's how things become "uncool" in their image rather than their practicality. Its simply not cool anymore to drive to work in a car...one must do it in an SUV.

That's how they allocate personalities and class ethics-- virtue as it is expressed in financial evidence as a participating consumer active in the progression of styles. A man not only gets an SUV but also a "stylish man" image in the product.

I think these dudes look silly, personally. Especially when the SUV is driven with the left arm propped up, slightly flexed, as the driver reclines back in the seat, equipped with sun glasses, hair gel, pierced ear or two, and a fake tan of tropical proportions.

The SUV is an overkill for this guy. He's not a revolutionary life myself and wouldn't need four-wheel drive anyway. Only I would need an SUV, not because I must buy my masculinity, but because I need to drive through the jungle to repress the oncoming imperialistic forces.

See the irony? I'm the greater man and I deserve the damn SUV, while he's a cheese-ball trying to look cool in front of his friends.

I also think hair-gel is a bad allocation of resources.

cyu

3rd April 2006, 19:19

There is plenty of room for all since with capitalism the pie can and does grow.

You could say that about any economic system. As long as there are technology improvements under whatever economic system you have, the pie will grow. The problem with capitalism is that the percentage of the pie taken up by the wealthy few is too large. (Not only that, the wealthy few are mostly shareholders, who are rewarded for not even doing any real work... what kind of incentive system is that if you want to reward progress?) The difference between capitalism and non-capitalism is whether the pie is growing slowly for the vast majority or much more quickly... not to mention a bigger share for the general population.

I want to know how a non-capitalist market could work.

It would work just like a capitalist market, except control of companies would be democratic. What parts of it in particular do you have questions about?

Publius

3rd April 2006, 22:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 02:43 PM

I hear this all the time and I have yet to understand how and why people define "incentive" the way they do.

Well, inside the market economy, we have a pretty good idea how people behave.

You, like the others, tend to model human morality around its economical conditions, such that proofs of inherent moral behaviors, this "underlying human behavior," are always evidenced during specific "economical effects." It is my contention that there are several methods for economy while the basic material conditions remain. Our "consumer habits" do not explain our "morals," if we have any, because "morals" cannot be contingent to a capitalistic setting. That is, they must be possible in all kinds of economy since they are based in material reality...a reality that can be formed by various politics.

Perhaps, but this arguing from ignorance.

We really have no idea how said society would work, if incentives are immutable or not.

The evidence that "people like to own stuff," for example, is not necessarily the reason why a capitalism came into existence. Instead you should look at it as if because of the capitalism, people have the ability to own stuff and therefore "human behavior" is conditioned by this.

I would say it's the interplay between the two.

Obiously people desire things. Food, for instance. People desire comfort, broadly. People desire things that they enjoy, though their enjoyment of particular things is conditioned.

Again, it's an interplay between the two.

I would argue, actually, that they are inseperable.

Seriously, Pubs, define for me what you mean by "incentive." I just don't see much of a difference in the standards for that definition in either the capitalism or the communism. In short, I don't believe the hype about the greatness of capitalism.

Well that's established.

If you're not going to except the market 'incentive' system at all, there's not really much I can say.

The view that 'people's incentives would change' isn't really falsifiable or unfalsifiable. Neither is the view that won't.

I think I covered this when I asked if you wanted a kilamantis set. You said "no" because you didn't know what one was. Precisely, because they don't exist.

Did I say 'no'?

I believe I said, it depends.

If, for example, a kilamantis set would cure cancer, and I had cancer, I would obviously want one.

Likewise, products aren't made because people want them...people want what is made and for sale.

Prove it.

Food isn't made because people want it? People don't want houses? Or beds to sleep in? Or things to do to pass the time? Or music?

A product cannot exist without demand for it. That should be logical.

If you produce something that none wants, you'll have a very hard time, a nearly impossible time, inducing people to buy it.

Everything must be invented...but Edison had no idea that he wanted light until he discovered electricty.

I guess he and everyone on earth enjoyed not being able to see.

I take their fundamental brain chemistry was altered by the light bulb's invention? Previously people loved the darkness?

Nobody ever said "hey Ben, we want a lightbulb...figure something out."

Sure they did.

People wanted light and candles sucked, so Edison set out to work on something better.

'Necessity is the mother of invention'.

If what you're saying is untrue, Edison wouldn't have invented useful things like the light bulb at all.

That's right, and I will continue to disagree. My premise is that capitalism introduces activities into economy that are extraneous and troublesome.

It probably does.

It is, how shall I say...populating economy with more heads than needed. Its business overkill. The capitalist format for economy is not self evident...it doesn't prove that capitalism must work. It only proves that there are social and economic provileges that can be taken advantage of by distorting the definition of "work" and introducing concepts such as "credit," "money," and "interest."

Those aren't introduced concepts, they are reality.

They are representations (Simulicrums, you could say, if you were postmodernist).

These are not tangible effects of work-- they are not found in the means, the form, or the result of production.

No, but without the concepts no economy would, or could, function.

How can you not realize that?

If people could take risk at no cost to themselves, resources would be wasted at an astronomical rate.

You have to prevent people from pissing away useful capital; hence, interest.

Could a different scheme be invented, voting, perhaps? Sure, but it would achieve the same thing and would likely use the same process. It would change nothing for the better.

Interest signifies risk; risk is a fact of life. If you ignore risk, your entire economy collapses.

It's really that simple.

The "cost" system is an addition to the formal process of material production.

Yes, and it's a necessary addition.

THings aren't as simple as "We should make X".

I think your ignorance in economics hampers your argumentation greatly.

It's hard for me to see where you're even arguing from, becuase it seems to ignore basic fact.

Yes it is. In fact, everything is a form of "work." There is always effort. If you have a "job" then you are working. Even capitalists "work" in the true sense of the word. And economy is physical labor....all of it.

And resources.

And information assemytry.

And talent, skill.

And education.

And I could go on.

This is asinine. Yes, by saying 'everything is work' you neatly correct your underestimation, but saying "Sleep is work, work is work, leisure is work" does nothing to prove anything and does nothing to better explain how an economy actually works.

"Workers are made of atoms" explains the processes about as effectively as "An economy is labor".

What about information, what about resources, what about talent, what about education?

Yes, you could concievably say all of these are 'labor', but it wouldn't do you any good because you would still have no idea how people made pipes, or food, or cars.

It doesn't accomplish anything.

Labor is simply moving an object from one place in spacetime to another. That's all it is.

Now obviously anything requires that to happen, but it really doesn't help as understand the process.

But that's a negative. I don't define useless labor as a way to practice economy. I'm counting out the useless holes that are dug with a shovel. If labor is toward the end of "work" in the field of economy it is necessarily useful and not a waste. If I produce a thousand of product X, I wouldn't do so unless there was a forcasted demand, even if it were a bit inaccurate. The point is that efforts of production are not, by themselves, subjective and uneconomical. Job oriented work is economical...personal luxury and labor might or might not be a potential product, and so its irrelevent. One is either "clocked in" or "clocked out." (Except maybe Pubs, who stands with pseudo iron bolshevik determination by the soda machine, mocking the blue-collars who labor harmoniously around him.)

Well, to sort of conveniently side-step the issue, leisure and rest can be accounted for 'economically' since the purpose an economy is to serve needs and wants.

Agreed, but you miss the important difference between how communism appropriates this and how capitalism appropriates this. Both system work the same as far as you've explained-- production of commodites is certainly wanted and needed in either. It is only the capitalism that plays off of the consumer field to create unecessary degrees of value (I explained this earler). For example, I might want product X...and as a capitalist you know that. You also know that another capitalist has that product as well, and is selling it for a cheaper price. Because of this, I probably won't buy it from you. To appropriate this situation, you will lower the wages you pay your workers to make product X, and therefore the objective labor has becomes a subjective value-- it becomes contingent to the field of competiiton and costs.

Now, without you or the other capitalist, there would be no emergency to earn the business of the customer, no competition and therefore no fluctuating prices, and no wage bargaining.

And none of the benefits assocated with competition.

Making product X and giving it to a consumer is most certainly an objective task. What is not part of that equation is the differing of degrees of economical efficiency in improvising the competitive setting of the market. If it ever becomes a case of workers providing the same labor to produce a product that is less valuable, and therefore are "paid less," it is because of a contingency created in the uneccessary market. Such an transaction between a producer and a consumer does not require a capitalist.

But is it it made more expedient by it?

It isn't because I made X and you want it that there is a problem. It is because the guy who paid me make X for you is trying to make a profit from selling what I make. If another person is doing the same thing, there will be a competition and you might "pay more" for what I made for "lower wages"...and we'd both be pissed at the two of them.

Or does profit represent something eles? Past investment perhaps?

Look at this more broadly.

This is what I was saying I don't understand. What do you mean by "incentive?" Would there be no ambition to pioneer new technologies in a communism? No ambitions to own a fast car?

I have the ambition to live in a nicer house but I'm not outside with a hammer staring work on one now; it doesn't make sense.

If you want a fast car are you honestly saying you'd build a whole factory for it?

The working model of "incentive" that you have here is directly related to the means by which it is expressed in the culture of consumerism. People attribute virtue and material wealth to "the only possible way to progress as an individual."

I certainly don't.

Perhaps that's just a result of my liberal education and temperment, but I don't really want a lot of 'stuff'.

This ambition causes conflict in culture and classes result. People are, in a capitalist culture, "walking products" in the sense that how they derive personal esteem and "honor" is through their consumer habits. It follows that the only incentive that can exist would be the incentive to advance oneself from a lower class-- to aquire a means for more material wealth because that is what is "virtuous." People then compete over images that are in actuality only metaphors of self-esteem-- the "class lifestyle" as it is compared to the life of a homeless man, for example. This is in a sense not a real moral negotiation, that is, it is not an accurate way to describe virtue and self-esteem, because the images or ideas of such are bound to the already established "culture of the classes." It is a circularity that maintains itself indefinitely.

"Incentive" can, in this scenario, be befuddled and self defeating.

Great exposition, but I think it ignores reality. People need not be consumerist within capitalism.

Me, or you, for example.

But this stature you talk about may result from man's genes and not from the capitalist system.

Apes and other animals have a stature system, for example.

It may very well be true that ridding people of want for 'stature' is as impossible as ridding them for want of pleasure or sex.

I guess you could argue that stature would 'change', but that's what I'm arguing.

We can change the system of stature within capitalism. No need to change things.

I define "inflation" to mean anytime a product is sold for more than what it cost to make. If the third margin of "profit" is introduced into the process, I say that what previously had an objective value is now inflated via this "third leg," and it now is subject to "cost."

Which summarily ignores what cost really means.

Of course, but again you aren't paying attention. After each material is made by a manufacturer it is sold to a buyer. That "price" is more than what it cost to make. Therefore, the wages of the workers who make the product are subject to become increasingly lower due to the competition in the field. Each time a material is manufactured to be sold to a builder its price is determined by a budgit with the incentive of profit. So, every man from the guy who cut the tree down to the guy who nails the studs is being exploited. No, not because he has to work to make products for consumers, but because he doesn't get the profit that is made buy the guy who employed him. At the top of this pyramid is the outrageous price for the final product, and it is outrageous because it is fitted to consider the margins of profits that must be generated during the several exchanges and phases in selling, purchasing, and appropriating between capitalists.

Again, what does profit represent, economically?

True, but eventually the little fish get swept up in the great wave. A small business owner is subjected to strong competition by bigger companies which, because of production rate, have lower prices for services. The little fish must get bigger if he is to survive, and this pressure is constant.

As a small business owner, I would have to pay wages which I could not afford to pay in order to make a profit which would justify my incentive to start my own business. I'd have to pay my carpenters at scale or they wouldn't work for me. If I paid them at scale, I wouldn't make a profit because I'm a little fish. A catch 22. The growing pangs of the young capitalist are overwhelming.

Unless you had more capital.

BUt that's another issue entirely.