Supply And Demand Economics [Archive]

Tigerman

28th July 2006, 08:11

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy+Jul 27 2006, 05:34 AM--> (clownpenisanarchy @ Jul 27 2006, 05:34 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 04:06 AM
HELLO COMMUNISTS IM A CONSRVATIVE REPUBLICAN NAMED TOMMY P

WHY DON'T YOU LEFTYS UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS!!!

SUPPLY AND DEMAND WORKS GOOD BECUASSE MARKETS ARE EFFICIENT!!1

WHY DON'T YOU GET THIS?!!!
Thread on bourgeois economics (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50428&hl=)

You don't strike me as being particularly bright, so I will quiz you on your "knowledge" of bullshit economics (most of these are from the above thread).

How do you measure the utility of a commodity and what are the "units of utility"?

How do you measure a subjective thing like utility?

How should one go about measuring the value of an object?

In what manner can demand be accurately measured?

Also, do you ever actually make a reply in these dumb threads you start? [/b]
This is my very first post.

Let me say thanks to you brave souls for giving opposing ideologies an opportunity to go head to head.

I am a student of the Austrian School of Economics. I greatly admire Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. I am a regular reader of lewrockwell.com and mises.com.

I never took an economics course in my life but I have made the field my hobby for the last six or seven years.

My politics are Anarcho-capitalism and I would like the opportunity to answer the question posed of supply and demand economics.

Question 1. How do you measure a subjective thing like utility? We use experiance, logic and reason as individuals to determine the value of anything.

All values are subjective to the individual. What is worth something to you may be of no value to me. That is why the market place and not the central planner is best at matching up supplier and demander, i.e. customer and entrepeneur. The marketplace is where free-men can call out their demands in hopes that someone will satisfy them.

Question 2. How should one go about measuring the value of an object?

One should exercize your own judgement is the answer to that question.

Marx's labor theory of value is short sighted and wrong. The labor componet is but a small part of the value of any object.

How badly someone wants that particular object (time preferance) and what they are willing to pay determines the value of everything including labor.

Question 3. In what manner can demand be accurately measured?

By using the pricing mechanism. Pet Rocks for example. Their utility is in the entertainment vlue they provided owners as converstion pieces. The costs are minmal to produce and at first these units sold for $18. When sales slowed after the first rush, the price was reduced to $13. That was a signal to the entrepeneur that the market was becoming saturated. All those who were likely to buy at the high price bought. Those who thought the initial price too high would have the opportunity to purchase one at a ruduced rate. Orders would slow up signaling the entrepeneur that the demand had about run its course. All remaining Pet Rocks could thereafter be purchased for $5 or less in bargain bins and you would be hard pressed to find a new Pet Rock today, the manufacturer has not made them for years.

So prices are the measure of demand. Prices are signals and that's why the Soviet Union failed. There are no free-market signals for the Commisar to read as feedback from which to make a marketing decision. Pet Rocks will be produced until the warehouses are full, but at least the factory will be open and productive!

theraven

28th July 2006, 08:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 01:26 AM
Mathematics deals with quantity, structure, space, change, etc.

If you can't quantify things in economics particularly macroeconomics, you're in trouble.
yea it does... change in quantity. its imposisbel to quantify things that have a million different facotires and are costnantly changing. there are things to quantify in economics but things like utitliy and so faorth if quanitifed are mostly gueses

That's exactly why bourgeois economics is garbage.

excet capitlist economics is not a purely mathmetical system, so thus is not dependinet on this .

Rollo

28th July 2006, 08:34

Originally posted by Tigerman+Jul 28 2006, 03:12 PM--> (Tigerman @ Jul 28 2006, 03:12 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 05:34 AM

[email protected] 27 2006, 04:06 AM
HELLO COMMUNISTS IM A CONSRVATIVE REPUBLICAN NAMED TOMMY P

WHY DON'T YOU LEFTYS UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS!!!

SUPPLY AND DEMAND WORKS GOOD BECUASSE MARKETS ARE EFFICIENT!!1

WHY DON'T YOU GET THIS?!!!
Thread on bourgeois economics (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50428&hl=)

You don't strike me as being particularly bright, so I will quiz you on your "knowledge" of bullshit economics (most of these are from the above thread).

How do you measure the utility of a commodity and what are the "units of utility"?

How do you measure a subjective thing like utility?

How should one go about measuring the value of an object?

In what manner can demand be accurately measured?

Also, do you ever actually make a reply in these dumb threads you start?
This is my very first post.

Let me say thanks to you brave souls for giving opposing ideologies an opportunity to go head to head.

I am a student of the Austrian School of Economics. I greatly admire Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. I am a regular reader of lewrockwell.com and mises.com.

I never took an economics course in my life but I have made the field my hobby for the last six or seven years.

My politics are Anarcho-capitalism and I would like the opportunity to answer the question posed of supply and demand economics.

Question 1. How do you measure a subjective thing like utility? We use experiance, logic and reason as individuals to determine the value of anything.

All values are subjective to the individual. What is worth something to you may be of no value to me. That is why the market place and not the central planner is best at matching up supplier and demander, i.e. customer and entrepeneur. The marketplace is where free-men can call out their demands in hopes that someone will satisfy them.

Question 2. How should one go about measuring the value of an object?

One should exercize your own judgement is the answer to that question.

Marx's labor theory of value is short sighted and wrong. The labor componet is but a small part of the value of any object.

How badly someone wants that particular object (time preferance) and what they are willing to pay determines the value of everything including labor.

Question 3. In what manner can demand be accurately measured?

By using the pricing mechanism. Pet Rocks for example. Their utility is in the entertainment vlue they provided owners as converstion pieces. The costs are minmal to produce and at first these units sold for $18. When sales slowed after the first rush, the price was reduced to $13. That was a signal to the entrepeneur that the market was becoming saturated. All those who were likely to buy at the high price bought. Those who thought the initial price too high would have the opportunity to purchase one at a ruduced rate. Orders would slow up signaling the entrepeneur that the demand had about run its course. All remaining Pet Rocks could thereafter be purchased for $5 or less in bargain bins and you would be hard pressed to find a new Pet Rock today, the manufacturer has not made them for years.

So prices are the measure of demand. Prices are signals and that's why the Soviet Union failed. There are no free-market signals for the Commisar to read as feedback from which to make a marketing decision. Pet Rocks will be produced until the warehouses are full, but at least the factory will be open and productive! [/b]
I think I love you. Hope you stick around on revleft tiger!

28th July 2006, 15:49

excet capitlist economics is not a purely mathmetical system, so thus is not dependinet on this .

Exactly. And that's why it's garbage.

bezdomni

28th July 2006, 16:26

excet capitlist economics is not a purely mathmetical system, so thus is not dependinet on this .
Economics is mathematical, plain and simple. The inability for bourgeois economics to calculate for subjective things (like utility and demand) in any meaningful way is the reason it is fundamentally mathematically flawed.

if you figure out how to quantiyf things like
happiness
or
utility...
Thanks for proving my point.

You CANNOT quantify such things and therefore cannot calculate for them in a capitalist system! That is why the system sucks.

theraven

28th July 2006, 17:56

Tigerman

28th July 2006, 18:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 01:27 PM

excet capitlist economics is not a purely mathmetical system, so thus is not dependinet on this .
Economics is mathematical, plain and simple. The inability for bourgeois economics to calculate for subjective things (like utility and demand) in any meaningful way is the reason it is fundamentally mathematically flawed.

if you figure out how to quantiyf things like
happiness
or
utility...
Thanks for proving my point.

You CANNOT quantify such things and therefore cannot calculate for them in a capitalist system! That is why the system sucks.
Economics is about the study of man as an economiser.

Mathmatics has little or nothing to do with economics.

Economics is about human action.

You will notice that there was no mathmatics in my answer to supply and demand economics.

Lets get some definitions straight.

What does utility mean to you? Because the uselfulness of everything is calculatable.

Demand most certainly is not a subjective value.

It is a hard value.

Happiness is quantifiable by all individuals too.

What makes one person happy does not need to make the next person happy.

Some people, called masochists enjoy pain. Some people called sadists like to inflict pain.

So what is a supersadist? Well, that's someone who refuses to beat a masochist.

All personal values are subjective. That's why each individual must measure for themselves.

Capitalism allows individuals to express their values in the for of prices paid for whatever commodity or service.

28th July 2006, 18:12

All personal values are subjective.

And that is why this is a joke. Economics isn't subjective, as much as you and your fellow bourgeois economists would like to make it out to be.

Janus

28th July 2006, 19:03

yea it does... change in quantity. its imposisbel to quantify things that have a million different facotires and are costnantly changing. there are things to quantify in economics but things like utitliy and so faorth if quanitifed are mostly gueses
What, math can't look at trends?

Economics is about the study of man as an economiser.
:blink: Economics is about the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods.

theraven

28th July 2006, 19:22

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 28 2006, 03:13 PM

All personal values are subjective.

And that is why this is a joke. Economics isn't subjective, as much as you and your fellow bourgeois economists would like to make it out to be.
yes....capitlist economics has the problem of dealing with humans.

What, math can't look at trends?

sure but its not always right in its interpertaiotn of them.

Janus

28th July 2006, 19:38

sure but its not always right in its interpertaiotn of them.
Yes, nothing is always right or certain but it doesn't mean we shouldn't analyze these type of figures mathematically.

theraven

28th July 2006, 19:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:39 PM

sure but its not always right in its interpertaiotn of them.
Yes, nothing is always right or certain but it doesn't mean we shouldn't analyze these type of figures mathematically.
ok then but so what? capitlists do analylize those figures to try and figure out how many products they need and so forth.

Janus

28th July 2006, 20:12

ok then but so what?
If we can't quantify or scientifically analyze something we might as well call in a fortuneteller or an astrologist.

theraven

28th July 2006, 20:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 05:13 PM

ok then but so what?
If we can't quantify or scientifically analyze something we might as well call in a fortuneteller or an astrologist.
its not exact, but we have a reasonabel guess. i believe the word is "estiamte"

Janus

28th July 2006, 20:47

i believe the word is "estiamte"
It sure is. :lol:

Estimation is generally a must for macroscopic issues such as economics.

JasonJ

30th July 2006, 17:00

I fail to understand why such an argument is even worth arguing. I've been thinking about deliberately mistyping while reading this entire thread just so I can look like I've been drinking the bong water also; but honestly, the thread is about how to keep score in a zero-sum game, to oversimplify. Why is it more important to capitalists to figure out how to decide who is winning the game 3/4 the way through than it is to figure out how to keep people from suffering and killing one another in competition over locally limited resources. Were we to spend half as much energy figuring out ways to use our resources in a sustainable manner to advance all people, then we would be on to something.

Sorry, but the game of Capitalism, just like Monopoly must ultimately end with one winner and one winner only. Unlike Monopoly; however, that winner will have on one left to rub it into that he or she won due to the fact that there will be nobody left to show off to.

I realize that this is not what Adam Smith was arguing in favor of in Wealth of Nations, but given the nature of the human animal, this is what is. I always find it fascinating how easily my more capitalistic friends can slip between metaphor and fact by talking first about what capitalism strives for and what they percieve socialism to strive for. In the process the debate always turns to what Adam Smith meant and how the 'application' of socialism fared in the USSR. This is an interestly, albeit, subtle slip in the argument. When we start talking about intent on one hand and historical fact on the other we have lost the level playing field. Now most Bourgeosie that I talk to feel that there is nothing inherently wrong with this slip and would argue that there is no slip, but it is there, subtle as it may be.

The other thing that has bothered me throughout this thread is the units of measure that we keep referring to in the argument. Everything boils down to money. Isn't that the case? And what is this currency of exchange? What is money? Is it not an expedient exchange medium for the excess value of human labor? If this assumption is wrong, then what else could it be?

In a sense, money itself is a form of slavery. People are indentured into service by an exchange medium which states 'I have already contributed this much work, in exchange, I demand you do this much work to honor the agreement. Wherefore, you can then force others to repeat in kind'

"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."

Is this not what we are talking about here? We are merely arguing over the value of the unit of the exchange. So we are therefore speaking in the language of the capitalism himself, which is sadly without dignity.

Marxist_Fire

30th July 2006, 21:25

DIDNT YOU EVER TAKE ECONOMICS CLASS!!!

WITH SUPLLY AND DEMAND, EVERYBODY GETS WHAT THEY WANT EFFICIENTLY -- ITS THE INVISIBLE "HAND'''!!!!

FREE MARKETS ARE JUST AND WORK MORE PERFECTLY THAN OTHERE SYSTEMS --- READ MILTON FRIEDMAN!!!!!1

LOOK HOW PROSPERUOS MARKETS HAVE MADE THE UNITED SSTATES OF AMERICA, IT IS THE RICHEST COUNTRY ON EARTH!!!

Marxist_Fire

30th July 2006, 21:26

So, what does everyone think of my TommyP imitation?

theraven

30th July 2006, 22:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 02:01 PM
I fail to understand why such an argument is even worth arguing. I've been thinking about deliberately mistyping while reading this entire thread just so I can look like I've been drinking the bong water also; but honestly, the thread is about how to keep score in a zero-sum game, to oversimplify. Why is it more important to capitalists to figure out how to decide who is winning the game 3/4 the way through than it is to figure out how to keep people from suffering and killing one another in competition over locally limited resources. Were we to spend half as much energy figuring out ways to use our resources in a sustainable manner to advance all people, then we would be on to something.

Sorry, but the game of Capitalism, just like Monopoly must ultimately end with one winner and one winner only. Unlike Monopoly; however, that winner will have on one left to rub it into that he or she won due to the fact that there will be nobody left to show off to.

I realize that this is not what Adam Smith was arguing in favor of in Wealth of Nations, but given the nature of the human animal, this is what is. I always find it fascinating how easily my more capitalistic friends can slip between metaphor and fact by talking first about what capitalism strives for and what they percieve socialism to strive for. In the process the debate always turns to what Adam Smith meant and how the 'application' of socialism fared in the USSR. This is an interestly, albeit, subtle slip in the argument. When we start talking about intent on one hand and historical fact on the other we have lost the level playing field. Now most Bourgeosie that I talk to feel that there is nothing inherently wrong with this slip and would argue that there is no slip, but it is there, subtle as it may be.

I have trouble imiagining a more effective method of distrubationg resrouces. the probelm with yoru theory is resoures dont magically appear. to give an example: we have plenty of food right? so why not send some to africa where many are starving. wel we do. the result? 20 million starving people turne dinto 40 million starving peole. you need to creat economies not give peopel sutff. as the saying goes "give a man a fish, feed him for a day. teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

The other thing that has bothered me throughout this thread is the units of measure that we keep referring to in the argument. Everything boils down to money. Isn't that the case? And what is this currency of exchange? What is money? Is it not an expedient exchange medium for the excess value of human labor? If this assumption is wrong, then what else could it be?

money is a payment for some resource or service and signfiies the owner of the currency perfromed a service or sodl some rseoce to another. thus if i am a chimney sweeper i can go and performt his service for money. then i can go to my local bar and purchase a produc with it. currency is a medium of trade that repaces bartering.

In a sense, money itself is a form of slavery. People are indentured into service by an exchange medium which states 'I have already contributed this much work, in exchange, I demand you do this much work to honor the agreement. Wherefore, you can then force others to repeat in kind'

"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."

its not slavery. slavery is forcing osmeon to work. in this case i would pay you to do work. if you didn't od it I would demand my money back.

Janus

31st July 2006, 22:03

20 million starving people turne dinto 40 million starving peole. you need to creat economies not give peopel sutff
We did establish an economy there; it's called imperialism.

We only give food when there is a shortage or a famine. No matter what, you can't magically grow crops during that time period.

as the saying goes "give a man a fish, feed him for a day. teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."
:lol: Good one. Except there's a problem in Africa called crocodiles.

JasonJ

1st August 2006, 04:12

No offense Raven but learn how to proofread your text. I mean come on, you would like to have an intellectual discussion while writing in crayons?

If you take away the jargon of the system, what you are left with is excuses and jibberish. I will ask once again, what is money? You cannot eat money. You cannot build a sustainable shelter with it unless you have a lot of it. You probably would not make clothing out of it or use it to light a fire. Outside the system of the market, money has no meaning. Yes, we could and do give food to starving nations, with strings attached so far. Yes, it is far better to show a man how to fish instead of giving him a fish. I do not believe anyone is arguing that point. But creating a global 'client state' in the name of fat cats getting wealthier and wealthier by stepping on the heads of the downtrodden is not the answer

theraven

1st August 2006, 08:37

If you take away the jargon of the system, what you are left with is excuses and jibberish. I will ask once again, what is money? You cannot eat money. You cannot build a sustainable shelter with it unless you have a lot of it. You probably would not make clothing out of it or use it to light a fire. Outside the system of the market, money has no meaning

your rigth that money itself is inhernetly worthless. what it symbolzies however is not. the whole point o fmoney ot allow the system to flow freely. its evolution was from the previosu (and natural) barter system. the only time a money/barterless system will exist is if there is an exsitnace as long as supply is not in excess of demand everywhere

. Yes, we could and do give food to starving nations, with strings attached so far. Yes, it is far better to show a man how to fish instead of giving him a fish. I do not believe anyone is arguing that point. But creating a global 'client state' in the name of fat cats getting wealthier and wealthier by stepping on the heads of the downtrodden is not the answer

actualy the problem si we dont' attach enough strings. we give em food, but the govnemrn does whateer with it, usualy giving it out to partisans and just makes it worse.

Janus

1st August 2006, 20:49

You want aid organizations to start attaching strings to their charitable work?

Generally, governments do that and it's now called neocolonialism.

Tigerman

3rd August 2006, 22:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:04 PM

yea it does... change in quantity. its imposisbel to quantify things that have a million different facotires and are costnantly changing. there are things to quantify in economics but things like utitliy and so faorth if quanitifed are mostly gueses
What, math can't look at trends?

Economics is about the study of man as an economiser.
:blink: Economics is about the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods.
You failed to mention services.
Economics is about how to satisfy human desires and wants.
What we "need," food, shelter and clothing, well the caveman had that.
The question is how do we allocate the goods and services available?
The Central Planner, or the pagan God knows better, is all wise and makes all the right decisions at the right time everytime.

Or

Spontanoues order, the Marletplace, the Agora needs no central plan.
Men can gather to exchance goods and services voluntarily.
There have been literally a million men who have walked the face of the Earth with a plan to deliver happiness to all.
Not one of those plans worked, will work or could ever work because they all oppress the other in one way shape of form.
So those are the choices. The Strongman like Stalin directs the show or we allow the market to run it's own course whereby million and in fact billions of persons can exchange the fruits of their labor without direction from "our betters." The Stalin's and the Mao's.

For instance, here is a URL to what is, in my opinion, the most important economic book ever written.
Human Action 1949 Ludwig von Mises.
http://www.mises.com/humanaction.asp

Look where the book starts...

PART ONE
HUMAN ACTION
Chapter I. Acting Man [ read in .pdf]

Purposeful Action and Animal Reaction (p. 11)
The Prerequisites of Human Action (p. 13)
Human Action as an Ultimate Given (p. 17)
Rationality and Irrationality; Subjectivism and Objectivity of Praxeological Research (p. 19)
Causality as a Requirement of Action (p. 22)
The Alter Ego (p. 23)

From Acting Man

Chapter 1. Acting Man.
2. The Prerequisites of Human Action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We call contentment or satisfaction that state of a human being which does not and cannot result in any action. Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory. His mind imagines conditions which suit him better, and his action aims at bringing about this desired state. The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness [1]. A man perfectly content with the state of his affairs would have no incentive to change things. He would have neither wishes nor desires; he would be perfectly [p. 14] happy. He would not act; he would simply live free from care.

But to make a man act, uneasiness and the image of a more satisfactory state alone are not sufficient. A third condition is required: the expectation that purposeful behavior has the power to remove or at least to alleviate the felt uneasiness. In the absence of this condition no action is feasible. Man must yield to the inevitable. He must submit to destiny.

These are the general conditions of human action. Man is the being that lives under these conditions. He is not only homo sapiens, but no less homo agens. Beings of human descent who either from birth or from acquired defects are unchangeably unfit for any action (in the strict sense of the term and not merely in the legal sense) are practically not human. Although the statutes and biology consider them to be men, they lack the essential feature of humanity. The newborn child too is not an acting being. It has not yet gone the whole way from conception to the full development of its human qualities. But at the end of this evolution it becomes an acting being.

Economics is about MAN AS AN ECONOMISER and has little to do with the study of production distribution and comsumption.... those are all a consequence of an acting man who seeks to move from a state of uneasiness to a state of satifaction and always seeks new satisfactions once the first state of uneasiness is dealt with.

Praxeology: From dictionary.com
The study of human conduct.

In short, why people reach into their pockets and buy the things they buy in the pursuit of their own happyness.

Mises used the negative in that man acts, always to allivieate a state of uneasiness.

The positive would be man acts to pursue happiness.

Janus

3rd August 2006, 22:30

or we allow the market to run it's own course whereby million and in fact billions of persons can exchange the fruits of their labor without direction from "our betters
The problem with that is easily discerned when you look at all the depressions that have occured. This boom and bust cycle is a very inefficient practice.

By the way, there's no need to space out your post so much.

theraven

3rd August 2006, 23:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 05:50 PM
You want aid organizations to start attaching strings to their charitable work?

Generally, governments do that and it's now called neocolonialism.
condiotns like "repsct for property rights" "fair distrubtion of goods (ie dont' deny them to that tribe ebcause your not a meber kind athing) things liek that.

Tigerman

4th August 2006, 00:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:31 PM

or we allow the market to run it's own course whereby million and in fact billions of persons can exchange the fruits of their labor without direction from "our betters
The problem with that is easily discerned when you look at all the depressions that have occured. This boom and bust cycle is a very inefficient practice.

By the way, there's no need to space out your post so much.
Boom and bust is created by government intervention in the marketplace.

Left to its own devices the free-market needs no correction. Lazzie-faire means exactly that "let it be."

Let free men exchange the fruits of their labor in the open marketplace without do-gooders or champions of the underdog of any sort interfere and everybody will get along just fine.

The Fed and fiat cash. That is not free-market economics as per the Austrian School. We support the Gold Standard, which history teaches us Man choose as a medium of exchange long ago even before the advent of government and economies.

Boom and bust are a result of "Interventionist economics" expounded by both the Keynesians and Milton Friedman's Chicago School, which merely seek out efficient government instead of no government.

Animal spirits is what drove the economy acording to Keynes.

Free men serving each other through the division of labor in a mutually beneficial manner is what free-market lazzie faire economics is all about.

I hope you appreciate that you will never see an arguement in favor of state interventionism out of me.

I do not support the idea of Constition governments because the evidence is overwheleming that no government, even one set up by Thomas Jefferson and James Madision ecer stayed within the powers allocated by the Constitution.

Anarcho-capitalism is all about voluntary cooperation. Everybody gets a gun and no one man has any authority over another. You want another person to do your bidding you must "pursuade" or entice them with wages. Each is the proper judge of their own condition and can make their own subjective values as to whether they will engage in wage-labor, farming, entrepenuership or any other ventures.

Property rights are the cornerstone of the ideology. You and no other man owns the fruits of your labors. That every citizen have an equal opportunity to become a propertied citizen is the reasoning behind the right to own the fruits of your own labor; your properties.

The shirt on your back is your property. The words I, me, mine exist for a reason. To identify property. Whats mine is mine and whats yours is yours. We can exchange property titles in any manner that satisfies the individuals in the exchange without any other man having a say in the transaction. That is called liberty.

Janus

4th August 2006, 00:41

Boom and bust is created by government intervention in the marketplace.
Sometimes but not always. It take gov. intervention to get a nation out of a depression.

Property rights are the cornerstone of the ideology. You and no other man owns the fruits of your labors.
With property still in place, you're still going to have crimes and violence. Economic problems and disparity will still exist.

Tigerman

4th August 2006, 01:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 09:42 PM

Boom and bust is created by government intervention in the marketplace.
Sometimes but not always. It take gov. intervention to get a nation out of a depression.

Property rights are the cornerstone of the ideology. You and no other man owns the fruits of your labors.
With property still in place, you're still going to have crimes and violence. Economic problems and disparity will still exist.
Depressions are the market's reaction to the government's "easy money" policy.
Depressions are better known as "the day of reckoning." It was all the Fed's interference in the economy that caused the Great Depression. Government intervention prolonged the depression.
"The government" has a pretty poor track record when it comes to picking economic winners.

What makes you think there is a person so wise and all seeing that they can "correct" the errors of the people? There is no such magican. There is no such all wise omniscient person.

The free-market is forever self-correcting as the wants and desires of the people change. The government is too self-serving to react to market forces.

There were no blue jeans in Russia. There were no choices in footwear. Shoe styles changes as often as the latest dance steps change. Blue Jean styles change with the latest pop stars names.

The entrepeneur is the proper person to beware of the latest trends and to serve the free market with something they think will appeal to the masses. No one ever got rich serving one customer, unless your customer is the army. The masses decide who gets rich and who goes broke. They vote with every dollar they spend.

Property rights are the only solution to economic problems. And because man is imperfect, there will be no such thing as a utopian ideal.

Will crime still exist. Only if we allow plunder to become easier than work. Plunder must be made more dangerous than work and then men will not contemplate stealing the fruits of another man's labor.

Violence would be kept down to a dull roar in a society where the first order of duty is to self-protect. Those who resorted to violence would quickly be culled from the herd by the members of said herd if we all had the right to own every terrible instrument of the soldier.

Who's going to rob you if you have a machine gun and your neighbors got them too?

There are only two rules of conduct necessary for peace on Earth. Mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself.

Disparity is a good thing, not an evil. There is a natural aristorcracy that arises in a free nation. America is the richest of the rich because the people decided 200 years ago, that for the first time, a man was free to keep all the fruits of his own labor. The right to own property (elements mixed with your labor as per John Locke) became a reality. For the first time in 2000 year and only the third time in history liberty breaks out. It is for that reason that the history of invention and inovation is largely American.

George Washington gets pulled to his first Inaguration in a very nice horse drawn carriage that is on display in the Smithsonian. It took humanity millions of years to reach that point. In less than 200 years, Americans land on the Moon.

Capitalism responsible for it all.

The history of humanity is the Central Planner. Starvation for all was what the best of the best delivered with that ideology.

One day, Blacksmith John Deere has a brainstorm. Even though Blacksmith's had pounded steel for hundreds of years, it is Deere, who is thinking about how to improve the Eqyptian plow that starts the ball rolling. Put a piece of sharpened steel at just the right angle on that puppy and see what happens.

What happens? Well, Americans migrated from the historical roots of the East coast all the wat to California. The Prarie Grasslands would cut people to ribbons if they tried to pass. Trails had to be blazed through the stuff. The mid continet of America would remain a vast sea of tall grass forever. The roots went down 3 feet and the Eqyptian plow, which had not changed in 2000 years, simply could not cut the mustard.

John Deere changes all that. Now the sod can be busted. The "breadbasket of America is born" and with every improvement that developed rapidly after that, for the first time anywhere on planet Earth since time began... hunger is defeated in America.

It's called "the green revolution" in the history books.

Capitalism acomplished in under 200 years what millions of years of every other kinds of system dreamed of could not.

It is Capitalism that feeds the masses. We know what happened in the Soviet Union. Everybody starved except the elites.

Janus

4th August 2006, 01:38

Look, there's no need for you to space your sentences so much.

It was all the Fed's interference in the economy that caused the Great Depression. Government intervention prolonged the depression.
There was no government intervention until Roosevelt's New Deal. It took WWII to pull the country together.

What makes you think there is a person so wise and all seeing that they can "correct" the errors of the people?
When did I say that?

Who's going to rob you if you have a machine gun and your neighbors got them too?

There are only two rules of conduct necessary for peace on Earth. Mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself.
Who the hell is going to enforce that in this society you envision? The state was created so as to protect property rights.

Janus

4th August 2006, 01:43

It's called "the green revolution" in the history books.
No, the green revolution is much more recent.

The fact of the matter is that farmers have been producing a surplus in the US for a long time yet people still went hungry.

Capitalism acomplished in under 200 years what millions of years of every other kinds of system dreamed of could not.

It is Capitalism that feeds the masses. We know what happened in the Soviet Union. Everybody starved except the elites.
Depending on what period, you're talking about there wasn't as much starvation as you would think.

Capitalism does not feed starving people, it took government intervention to do that. In a truly capitalist nation, starving people would die.

red team

4th August 2006, 04:13

Anarcho-capitalism is all about voluntary cooperation. Everybody gets a gun and no one man has any authority over another. You want another person to do your bidding you must "pursuade" or entice them with wages. Each is the proper judge of their own condition and can make their own subjective values as to whether they will engage in wage-labor, farming, entrepenuership or any other ventures.

Property rights are the cornerstone of the ideology. You and no other man owns the fruits of your labors. That every citizen have an equal opportunity to become a propertied citizen is the reasoning behind the right to own the fruits of your own labor; your properties.

The shirt on your back is your property. The words I, me, mine exist for a reason. To identify property. Whats mine is mine and whats yours is yours. We can exchange property titles in any manner that satisfies the individuals in the exchange without any other man having a say in the transaction. That is called liberty.

The problem is why should anybody offer a fair trade for your labour, being that those that accumulate the most money also accumulates the most power to dictate terms of trade? In a purely competitive setting you would be insane not to adopt the strategy of offering the least possible payout for the greatest return in actual measurable wealth, since if you accumulate a surplus beyond what you actually need, but what other people need you can influence the negotiation between you and those you exchange with to your advantage. The weakest party in this arrangement would be those that own no physical assets that could keep themselves alive and have no significant cache of debt tokens (money) in which to influence any negotiation of exchange to their advantage. That advantage again being to pay out less than what can be sold in return.

Tigerman

4th August 2006, 05:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:39 PM
Look, there's no need for you to space your sentences so much.

It was all the Fed's interference in the economy that caused the Great Depression. Government intervention prolonged the depression.
There was no government intervention until Roosevelt's New Deal. It took WWII to pull the country together.

What makes you think there is a person so wise and all seeing that they can "correct" the errors of the people?
When did I say that?

Who's going to rob you if you have a machine gun and your neighbors got them too?

There are only two rules of conduct necessary for peace on Earth. Mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself.
Who the hell is going to enforce that in this society you envision? The state was created so as to protect property rights.
There has been nothing but government intervention since Lincoln started the Civil War.

What you said was that it took the government to end the Depression and I said that is not the case.

You stated that it took the government to end the depression. That is where you said you believed the government could correct the errors of the people.

Everybody enforces the law. No one gets a badge.

You do not need a state to enforce property rights.

Ireland existed without a government for 100 years.

Somolia just had 11 glorious years with no government.

Yet everybody knows who owns what. Go ahead and steal something in Somalia and see what happens. Clan justice takes care of it all.

The State may be created to protect property rights, but the evidence is that the state NEVER stays within the bounds. Some emergency always justifies power grabs. The Americans are but the latest in a long line of example of where "the people" were not vigilant. The people simply do not hold their governments to the constituted powers.

Ergo you might just as well wipe your rear end with the Constitution for all it is worth today.

Zero

4th August 2006, 07:15

Originally posted by "Tigerman"+--> ("Tigerman")What you said was that it took the government to end the Depression and I said that is not the case.[/b]
Sure as hell did in Germany, thats for sure.

Originally posted by "Tigerman"+--> ("Tigerman")Everybody enforces the law. No one gets a badge.[/b]
...
You sir, have not met a business end of a gun-toting madman. Vigalante justice is not justice at all. Arm the world with guns and property rights and you'll just end up with backyard Imperialism.

("Tigerman")You do not need a state to enforce property rights.[/b][/quote]
More like you don't need property rights. Mutual aid and collective ownership will actually feed the population, rather then let the starving die. In your Anarcho-Capitalist world, all the horrific chains of greed featured in the world today would be a shadow of what would be featured there. Anarcho-Capitalist meets the Sony army *giggle*.

("Tigerman")Somolia just had 11 glorious years with no government.[/b][/quote]
Ahh, 11 glorious years full of urban combat between warlords and drug kings for territory. Sounds like a paradise ^_^.

"Tigerman"@
Yet everybody knows who owns what. Go ahead and steal something in Somalia and see what happens. Clan justice takes care of it all.
0.o

I never thought I'd ever see a person advocating gang warfare! Clan justice? More like clan slaughter. Do you know how many people die in gang related incidents every year? Do you really want these numbers to rise? Oh yeah, because for every person killed by Gang A, Gang B will kill 5 people. Some "Justice".

"Tigerman"
The people simply do not hold their governments to the constituted powers.
I won't argue with that, as the Patriot act plainly shows.

Tigerman

4th August 2006, 07:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:44 PM

It's called "the green revolution" in the history books.
No, the green revolution is much more recent.

The fact of the matter is that farmers have been producing a surplus in the US for a long time yet people still went hungry.

Capitalism acomplished in under 200 years what millions of years of every other kinds of system dreamed of could not.

It is Capitalism that feeds the masses. We know what happened in the Soviet Union. Everybody starved except the elites.
Depending on what period, you're talking about there wasn't as much starvation as you would think.

Capitalism does not feed starving people, it took government intervention to do that. In a truly capitalist nation, starving people would die.
The Green Revolution happened in the 1960's.

Who/whom decides what is surplus food?

There has always been starvation. Want has been the norm. Tell me about Stalin and the Ukraine, why did people starve there?

Politcal decision were made perhaps?

The idea that government intervention would feed people is laughable.

The Chinese were mired in poverty with 40 years of Mao.

Deng come along in 1979 and sees the error of the Communist way.

He waves his hand and the Chinese peaseants are permitted to own their own little plots of land. The peasants make those plots of land very productive and 25 years later, China is buying American debt.

Capitalism, the right to own the fruits of your labor made all the difference in the world.

In a truly capitalist society there would be no hunger, except for people who wanted to be starving artisists or the like.

Of course there has never been a "true capitalist" system tried yet.

But the evidence from China is overwhelming and very encouraging.

The freer the people, the happier and more productive they become.

The 5 year central plans of the Chinese Communists never met their targets once.

Tigerman

4th August 2006, 08:16

Originally posted by Zero+Aug 4 2006, 04:16 AM--> (Zero @ Aug 4 2006, 04:16 AM)
Originally posted by "Tigerman"+--> ("Tigerman")What you said was that it took the government to end the Depression and I said that is not the case.[/b]
Sure as hell did in Germany, thats for sure.

("Tigerman")Everybody enforces the law. No one gets a badge.[/b]
...
You sir, have not met a business end of a gun-toting madman. Vigalante justice is not justice at all. Arm the world with guns and property rights and you'll just end up with backyard Imperialism.

("Tigerman")You do not need a state to enforce property rights.[/b][/quote]
More like you don't need property rights. Mutual aid and collective ownership will actually feed the population, rather then let the starving die. In your Anarcho-Capitalist world, all the horrific chains of greed featured in the world today would be a shadow of what would be featured there. Anarcho-Capitalist meets the Sony army *giggle*.

("Tigerman")Somolia just had 11 glorious years with no government.[/b][/quote]
Ahh, 11 glorious years full of urban combat between warlords and drug kings for territory. Sounds like a paradise ^_^.

"Tigerman"@
Yet everybody knows who owns what. Go ahead and steal something in Somalia and see what happens. Clan justice takes care of it all.
0.o

I never thought I'd ever see a person advocating gang warfare! Clan justice? More like clan slaughter. Do you know how many people die in gang related incidents every year? Do you really want these numbers to rise? Oh yeah, because for every person killed by Gang A, Gang B will kill 5 people. Some "Justice".

"Tigerman"
The people simply do not hold their governments to the constituted powers.
I won't argue with that, as the Patriot act plainly shows. [/b][/quote]
Was that the economics of Ludwig Erhart that saved Germany? It sure was and Erhart was an Austrian economist who was very much influenced by Ludwig von Mises. Mises is credited with singlehandedly saving the economy of Austrian after WW1. There is nothing like sound economic policy to help any recovery from disaster.

You sir, have not met a business end of a gun-toting madman. Vigalante justice is not justice at all. Arm the world with guns and property rights and you'll just end up with backyard Imperialism.

Well yes I have. They call them home invasions and they happen because we in Canada are not allowed to bear arms. The criminals merely target you when your home and stick guns in your face. I would have loved to have shot them through the door. They had no buisness at my doorstep at 330 am.

All that "mutal aid" your talking about goes on at the point of a gun when ownership is collective. The Russian people prefered to go get drunk rather than working like dogs so that their neighbors could benefit. The Russians open up the Gulag and try to force dissenters to work.

That is the problem with collectivism, what to do with the dissenters? Know what Che did to them? Shot them in the back, that's what. Know what Castro did? He shot dissenters too. Mao, shot them. All collectives shoot the dissenters.
At least in a system based on individualism, if you are a dissenter, well who cares? You don't have to fit in. You can go about begging or stealing or run off to the woods and live off the land. No one will care. And Castro lives like a millionaire in a mansion. Greed is a character trait, not an ideological one. What about "government greed" like the fact we pay better than 50% of our earnings to the state? The government is in fact the greediest of the greedy.

The Urban Combat in Somolia only ocured when some idiot tried to form a government. The War lords would cooperate to kill anyone with such ideas. Needless to say, the American would not leave the Somali's alone so eventually a Muslim group organized and got strong enough to counter the American threat. Now Somalia has a government. And contrary to what you might think, Somolia was a lot more propserous when com,pared to all the other countries around that had governments. And "Clan justice" comes a lot closer to true justice, like a jury of your peers than anything that passes for Justice in America or Canada. There was no gang warefare in Somolia. Everybody knew better than to start anything.
It's because there is no one around to stop the killing that creates the atmosphere of safety. The people of Somolia soon tired of the killing and they worked out peace between the clans. Peace that was only broken when someone tried to start a government.

So we know Stalin, Mao, and Bush pay no attention to the Constitutions. I would love to see the Cuban Constitution because I'm willing to bet they are full of flowery words that Castro pays no attention to at all either.

So the bottom line, the people will never hold theuir governements to a limited size and power, so why put any stock in any of that chicanery?

Comrade-Z

4th August 2006, 08:18

the poster assumes that the worker cares about the utitlyt or lack therof of the product he is producing. they don't. If i get a job at a factory I don't care if its producing plastic bubbles that the cooky inheritor of a vast fortune is paying me 15 dollars to make or if i am produing rocket parts for the same price. what mattesr to the worker is: is the wage i am being payed worth the work i am doing. most workers would say no, which is why they always seek the better paying jobs.

If the worker doesn't care about the utility of his her actions, then the capitalist is at least worried about the utility of the labor. The labor must be useful if the capitalist is to make a profit.

Oh and there is no unity of utitliy, its impossibel to truely meausre and is constantly in flux, so its generally a guessing game. its impossibel to mathmeticaly calucalte it.

It is always in flux, but it is possible to determine whether labor is socially necessary or not to an approximate degree, with some minimal time-delay and innacuracy. You just look at whether there is an additional amount of something, like shoes, that people want to purchase and have the ability to purchase, and if so, then labor going towards production of said shoes is socially useful--it has utility.

Tigerman

4th August 2006, 09:02

Originally posted by red [email protected] 4 2006, 01:14 AM

Anarcho-capitalism is all about voluntary cooperation. Everybody gets a gun and no one man has any authority over another. You want another person to do your bidding you must "pursuade" or entice them with wages. Each is the proper judge of their own condition and can make their own subjective values as to whether they will engage in wage-labor, farming, entrepenuership or any other ventures.

Property rights are the cornerstone of the ideology. You and no other man owns the fruits of your labors. That every citizen have an equal opportunity to become a propertied citizen is the reasoning behind the right to own the fruits of your own labor; your properties.

The shirt on your back is your property. The words I, me, mine exist for a reason. To identify property. Whats mine is mine and whats yours is yours. We can exchange property titles in any manner that satisfies the individuals in the exchange without any other man having a say in the transaction. That is called liberty.

The problem is why should anybody offer a fair trade for your labour, being that those that accumulate the most money also accumulates the most power to dictate terms of trade? In a purely competitive setting you would be insane not to adopt the strategy of offering the least possible payout for the greatest return in actual measurable wealth, since if you accumulate a surplus beyond what you actually need, but what other people need you can influence the negotiation between you and those you exchange with to your advantage. The weakest party in this arrangement would be those that own no physical assets that could keep themselves alive and have no significant cache of debt tokens (money) in which to influence any negotiation of exchange to their advantage. That advantage again being to pay out less than what can be sold in return.
Who/whom decides what is a "fair."Your labor is only worth what the next man over is willing to pay for it. Dictating to any man what he must pay another and forbidding people to work for less than what you figure is fair is called serfdom.

It's the ant and the grasshopper. One works like an ant, saves for the long cold winter ahead. Meanwhile for the grasshopper, the party is on. Not a single nickle saved, got drunk, got laid, rocked, rolled sang and danced the hoochie-coo. But when winter comes, well the grsshopper starts to get cold and hungry.

The grasshopper made a lot of bad decisions but sure had a good time. The ant never had a good time at all. Saving money is a skill. The ant suffered to save. He did without the Party, he did without the women, he did without the rock and roll.

What does the ant owe the grasshopper? Not a gol-darn thing would be my answer. Those that accumulate the most money..... The penny pinchers and the spendthrift.

That's "the problem" with collectivism, the spendthrifts get the same say as the penny pinchers on how the penny pichers saving will be spent.

Wealth is accumulated savings. Don't save and you will never have any wealth. Wealth is saved in your properties. Your home, your business, your possessions.

Anything beyond a loincloth, a cave and a spear can be considered surplus. Does anybody really "need" anything more than food clothing and shelter?
Primitive man had all the necisities of life or we would not be here now.
So once more, who/whom is the omniscient person that decides what is surplus wealth?

Does Bill Gates have too much money? Bill sure does not think so. Neither do I. Bill Gates, the rivhest of the Capitalists deserves every nickle he ever earned. He made it possible to do this cheaply.

The powers of mass production have dropped the price of Personal Computers from about $2200 (what I paid for my first Amiga 500 with expanded memory and a second disk drive) to about $800 for a machine that is 100 time better in performance. So what was once a luxury good of the rich is now afforable to even the poorest of the poor. Them old pentium one's sell for $25 today and they are capable of getting on the net.

All exchanges must be mutally advantages or there is no deal.

Bill Gates has no "power" over me no matter how wealthy he is. I don't even need to clear the side walk, I could make him walk around me. Bill Gates can only entice me to do his bidding by making me a proposal. I will have to be satisfied that I will gain from the proposal or else I will find something better to do with my time too. Even though Bill Gates is the richest of the rich capitalists, he does not have any "power" other than the power of pursuassion over me. So when I step into Computerland to purchase a new Computer, I can always opt for a Mac or I could use Linux. So please explain to me, that if the richest of the rich capitalists can not force me to buy his system, what other capitalist can really force anything on me?

What capitalist can force me to accapt a low wage offer? Why can't I just start my own business and never work for anybody else if I don't want to?

Well, first I need a licence. Then there will be all sorts of government regulations to live up to or I will never get off the ground. Those already established will be big time supporter of all the obsticless placed in the path of new competition.

Only government have the ability to coerce me. Only the government can reach into my pockets and take what they like without fear of reprisals.

Bill Gates can't do any of that. Bill's gotta pay me what I want to do his bidding.

Buying low and selling high is the whole secret to getting rich. But what if I guess wrong in that game? What if I buy low and can't sell anything? What if I bought the last batch of Pet Rocks? Everyone who wanted one had already bought them and they were starting to sit on shelves in the toy store, but I thought I could sell them at Christmas so I bought all that were left at so ridiculously low a price, say 1 cent each for the last million of them. Boy oh Boy I'm rich for sure. All I gotta do is sell them for a buck apiece and I will enjoy 100% profit.

But alas, the Pet Rock craze is over. The kids are buying little electronic Pets that they have to keep alive and feed by pushing the button. ( I've forgotten what those things were called already...the consumers are a fickle lot eh...wants and desires changing all the time. What was hot yeasterday, dead in the market today, Ovey!) Well, I can reduce my expectations and sell my Pet Rocks for "half price" 50 cents. Even at that, I'll get rich. But no sales happen at that price. Not only are Pet Rocks not moving off the shelves at the toy store, they are starting to show up in the bargain bin at 2 for a penny! Someone is undercutting the price I paid,,,,just to get rid of them..... I'm going to take a bath on them Pet Rocks.

No amount of advertizing will restart the craze, that would be throwing good money after bad.

Those kinds of things happen everyday in the business world. One day Pet Rocks are $13, the next day they are a dime a dozen in the bargain bin. No one wants them anymore.

So even though I have all those assets, the last million Pet Rocks, well I still have no power to focrce anybody to buy them. Even Bill Gates nor the Sultan of Brunia would be able to force you to buy a Pet Rock from me.

I'll have to re-name them "sling shot projectiles" and try and pawn them off on the Army. The government would be the only ones stupid enough to take these darn Pet Rocks off my hands. I'm getting tired of eating them and it hurts my teeth.

Like I said, rich people have no power over me.

Janus

4th August 2006, 09:12

Somolia just had 11 glorious years with no government.

Yet everybody knows who owns what. Go ahead and steal something in Somalia and see what happens. Clan justice takes care of it all.
You call years of civil war glorious?

If you get enough people to help you steal stuff, you can get away with it.

Janus

4th August 2006, 09:16

The Chinese were mired in poverty with 40 years of Mao.
Not really. They were much worse beforehand.

Deng come along in 1979 and sees the error of the Communist way.

He waves his hand and the Chinese peaseants are permitted to own their own little plots of land. The peasants make those plots of land very productive and 25 years later, China is buying American debt.
And then the rural areas were neglected and look what has occured today.

Capitalism, the right to own the fruits of your labor made all the difference in the world.
It has screwed the workers and farmers in China.

But the evidence from China is overwhelming and very encouraging.
No, it's not. It has showed that when you boost economies, you will create major economic disparities.

The 5 year central plans of the Chinese Communists never met their targets once.
Actually they did and that's why they went a little overboard with the Great Leap Forward.

Janus

4th August 2006, 09:21

That is the problem with collectivism, what to do with the dissenters?
You're begging the question when you assume that people are inherently lazy.

Know what Che did to them? Shot them in the back, that's what. Know what Castro did? He shot dissenters too. Mao, shot them. All collectives shoot the dissenters.
They shot counter-revolutionaries, not lazy people.

And Castro lives like a millionaire in a mansion. Greed is a character trait, not an ideological one. What about "government greed" like the fact we pay better than 50% of our earnings to the state? The government is in fact the greediest of the greedy.
Where did you get this info.

The Urban Combat in Somolia only ocured when some idiot tried to form a government. The War lords would cooperate to kill anyone with such ideas.

Needless to say, the American would not leave the Somali's alone so eventually a Muslim group organized and got strong enough to counter the American threat. Now Somalia has a government.
They have had a government but it holds no power though that may be changing.

And contrary to what you might think, Somolia was a lot more propserous when com,pared to all the other countries around that had governments.
Right, that's why large portions of their population were starving because food was being horded.

There was no gang warefare in Somolia. Everybody knew better than to start anything.
The weaker gangs did.

Janus

4th August 2006, 09:23

Bill Gates can only entice me to do his bidding by making me a proposal. I will have to be satisfied that I will gain from the proposal or else I will find something better to do with my time too.

Even though Bill Gates is the richest of the rich capitalists, he does not have any "power" other than the power of pursuassion over me.
He can have power over you if he gets enough people on his side with his money.

Bill Gates can't do any of that. Bill's gotta pay me what I want to do his bidding.
No, he doesn't. He can collect a gang of people and force you to do his bidding.

Comrade-Z

4th August 2006, 09:38

Two examples of the LTV interacting with supply & demand:

1. 5 million labor-hours are expended on a year's production of a certain number of oranges, let's say 30 million. Normally, each orange would be worth 1/6 labor-hour. But then, an ill-timed frost comes along and kills off half the crop. So there are 15 million oranges left. But there are still 5 million labor-hours embodied in those oranges. So now the value of each of those oranges is 1/3 labor-hour. The supply of oranges dropped by half, and the value (and thus average price) doubled.

Edit: You might ask, "But what if only 2.5 milion labor-hours had been expended in the first place and produced only 15 million oranges, but there was still demand for 30 millin oranges?" In that case, I would still expect the price of the oranges to be 1/3 labor-hour, even though that doesn't add up. Here the LTV breaks down temporarily...but not for long! Labor continually adjusts itself towards areas of maximum utility. Workers don't continually produce stuff that people don't want. If they are self-employed, then the reason is obvious, and if they work for a capitalist, then the capitalist won't let them, lest the capitalist not be able to fetch an exchange value for the resulting items (items must satisfy a want somewhere--must have a use-value--before they can have exchange value). The profitability of the orange growing sector induces more labor and investment to move into this field, and by the time next year rolls around, 5 million labor-hours are being expended now on producing 30 million oranges, and the oranges are back to their correct value of 1/6 labor-hour. The LTV isn't perfect in determining every single value 100% accurately, and it has a time-lag and information-lag factor, but what economic theory doesn't?

2. 10 million labor-hours are expended on a year's production of 60 million oranges. So normally, each orange would be worth 1/6 labor-hour. But, for some reason, we get a situation where the demand for oranges for the year is only 40 million oranges. That means the labor put into 20 million of those 60 million oranges (1/3rd of 10 million, or 3.33 million) wasn't socially necessary (an item must satisfy a use-value somewhere before it can have an exchange value), and thus that segment of labor produces no value (and when we say "value," we are talking about exchange value--or price). Yet the labor put into the 60 million oranges as a whole is all of the same type and gets treated together. So, those 10 million labor-hours get valued as 6.67 million labor-hours. Those 6.67 million labor-hours go into the 60 million oranges as a whole, and so the value of each orange is now 1/9 labor-hours. The supply was 50% over the demand, and so the price of each orange decreases by 50%.

Tigerman

4th August 2006, 22:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 06:13 AM

Somolia just had 11 glorious years with no government.

Yet everybody knows who owns what. Go ahead and steal something in Somalia and see what happens. Clan justice takes care of it all.
You call years of civil war glorious?

If you get enough people to help you steal stuff, you can get away with it.
There was no civil war in Somolia.There was simply no government.
Here is what a liberty lover had to say about Somolia.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/somalia-saladdays.html

Fifteen glorious years without a central government in Somalia! It was typically described as a "power vacuum," as if the absence of a taxing, regulating, coercing junta is an unnatural state of affairs, one that cannot and should not last.

Well, now this "vacuum" is being filled, with an Islamic militia claiming to be in control of the capital, Mogadishu.

But US officials may rue the day they hoped for a new government in this country. The dictator Mohammed Siad Barre fell in 1991. US troops went in with the idea that they would restore order, but thank goodness they did not. Bill Clinton's idea fell into shambles after 18 soldiers were killed by warlords. That seems like a low number in light of the Iraq disaster, but to Clinton's credit, he pulled out.

Since that time, Somalia has done quite well for itself, thank you (BBC: "Telecoms Thriving in Lawless Somalia"). But there was one major problem. The CIA couldn't come to terms with it. The US government likes to deal with other governments, whether it is paying them or bombing them or whatever. What makes no sense to central planners in DC is a country without a state

Lew ends the article with this sage advice.

So here is a good rule. When a government falls, don't call it a "power vacuum." Call it a zone of liberty and be done with it. If some group claims to be the government, the proper answer should be: "Yeah, and I'm the Duke of Windsor. Get a life."

June 9, 2006

More on Somlia from a liberty lover rather than a statist mindset.
Like how Somali's set policy.

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/010736.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/parker1.html

The Answer for Africa
by Shafer Parker

Tigerman

4th August 2006, 22:39

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 4 2006, 06:39 AM
Two examples of the LTV interacting with supply & demand:

1. 5 million labor-hours are expended on a year's production of a certain number of oranges, let's say 30 million. Normally, each orange would be worth 1/6 labor-hour. But then, an ill-timed frost comes along and kills off half the crop. So there are 15 million oranges left. But there are still 5 million labor-hours embodied in those oranges. So now the value of each of those oranges is 1/3 labor-hour. The supply of oranges dropped by half, and the value (and thus average price) doubled.

Edit: You might ask, "But what if only 2.5 milion labor-hours had been expended in the first place and produced only 15 million oranges, but there was still demand for 30 millin oranges?" In that case, I would still expect the price of the oranges to be 1/3 labor-hour, even though that doesn't add up. Here the LTV breaks down temporarily...but not for long! Labor continually adjusts itself towards areas of maximum utility. Workers don't continually produce stuff that people don't want. If they are self-employed, then the reason is obvious, and if they work for a capitalist, then the capitalist won't let them, lest the capitalist not be able to fetch an exchange value for the resulting items (items must satisfy a want somewhere--must have a use-value--before they can have exchange value). The profitability of the orange growing sector induces more labor and investment to move into this field, and by the time next year rolls around, 5 million labor-hours are being expended now on producing 30 million oranges, and the oranges are back to their correct value of 1/6 labor-hour. The LTV isn't perfect in determining every single value 100% accurately, and it has a time-lag and information-lag factor, but what economic theory doesn't?

2. 10 million labor-hours are expended on a year's production of 60 million oranges. So normally, each orange would be worth 1/6 labor-hour. But, for some reason, we get a situation where the demand for oranges for the year is only 40 million oranges. That means the labor put into 20 million of those 60 million oranges (1/3rd of 10 million, or 3.33 million) wasn't socially necessary (an item must satisfy a use-value somewhere before it can have an exchange value), and thus that segment of labor produces no value (and when we say "value," we are talking about exchange value--or price). Yet the labor put into the 60 million oranges as a whole is all of the same type and gets treated together. So, those 10 million labor-hours get valued as 6.67 million labor-hours. Those 6.67 million labor-hours go into the 60 million oranges as a whole, and so the value of each orange is now 1/9 labor-hours. The supply was 50% over the demand, and so the price of each orange decreases by 50%.
Oranges are only worth what the buying public is willing to pay for them no matter how much labor was expended. That is true of all commodities.

The notion that the quantity of labor required to produce a given item directly affects the price of that good was brilliantly refuted by the father of the Austrian School of Economics, Carl Menger, in his Principles of Economics. Menger showed that the value of goods and services stem from the subjective tastes of all economic actors and not from the inputs of the production process.

If a vintage baseball card sells for $100,000 and a Mercedes-Benz sells for $30,000, does this indicate then that the card must have used more labor in its production than the automobile? Under the labor theory of value it would. But this is obviously incorrect. The baseball card is expensive not because the factors that created it are costly but because the subjective evaluations of individuals have bid the value of this good up to a certain degree.

Now you know why your labor is only worth what the next guy over is willing to pay for it.

You labor is just another commodity in the marketplace. It's value is subject to the bias of a person who wishes to employ your talents. If I pay you to assist me in building a $100,000 home, your labor is worth $10.00 an hour, not half the value of the house minus costs. And if you cause me grief or don't even know how to use a hammer, then your labor may be valueless to me. I may want to work with someone I enjoy working with instead of some sour puss or confrontational person. I should be free to hire and pay who I please.

Epoche

4th August 2006, 23:11

Oranges are only worth what the buying public is willing to pay for them no matter how much labor was expended. That is true of all commodities.

Oranges aren't "worth" anything because there is no evaluation in the understanding of their existence. They are a food item. They get eaten. They supply an organism with a substance to metabolize. An orange has no more "objective" existence than that. "Worth" is a loaded term which relies on pre-established errors in determing the nature of commodities. It is a form of fetishism.

"Pay" is nonsense as well, because "money" does not exist; it is a symbolisation of labour power, only it is appropriated as a credit device; money is "historical labour" in a future surplus form. "Money" didn't start economy. It was printed and intended to represent stocks of commodities and labour force. If somebody had a dollar...the work was already done. The "dollar" was put into the economy after it was already started. Trade systems existed long before currency was invented.

So here's what you got. You got a guy who, in a specific class consciousness, is influenced and conditioned to consider a commodity in a context of "value," decides what the orange is "worth," depending on his consumer schemata, and willfully trade his "money," which is a cache of labour (not his own, if he is bourgeois) for the orange.

The orange belongs to nobody. It has no "value," whatever that means. It is nothing more than the sum material conditions involved in its production and consumption.

Menger showed that the value of goods and services stem from the subjective tastes of all economic actors and not from the inputs of the production process.

"Tastes" are not subjective. That you like oranges is an objective fact. That you like oranges and Tom does not, is an objective fact. The orange is neither "good" or "bad" because our liking or disliking an orange is not a case of deciding the value of an orange. It is a matter of determining the oranges participation in an economy as its assigned function; to be eaten.

In this case, the "value," which doesn't really exist, is only the popularity of the commodity. But the popularity is contingent on the market context; something which would not exist in communism. Therefore, we see again that the "value" is not determined by the market discourse...because there isn't one, but rather the use of the commodity by the people who are both its producer and consumer.

I don't want to bother with the rest of the post because each example is a case of fetishism. Mistaking the objectivity of a commodity for an "opinion" about it. The "opinion" is contingent to a capitalistic system of class consciousnesses. For example, a Mercedes does not symbolize "class status" for a Marxist because a Marxist does not conceptualize a Mercedes outside of its objective function as a commodity. Someone involved in a class consciousness decides the value of a Mercedes based on his discourse with other consumers, and the competition for the ownership of the Mercedes creates the following value: you're "valuable" is you own one, and shit if you don't.

Nonsense.

ComradeRed

4th August 2006, 23:26

Menger showed that the value of goods and services stem from the subjective tastes of all economic actors and not from the inputs of the production process. Menger "proved" nothing. If you had actually read his longwinded "explanation" of economics, he uses marginal utility which can't be measured.

So you're up a creek without a paddle...Even Menger tried (and failed) to demonstrate that marginal utility is quantifiable.

There is no logical proof for the STV other than "Really, trust me, that's how the economy works." There's no math, no logic, and no proof.

This leaves a rather blatantly obvious question to be answered: who would believe this? :huh:

Here, point in case, find the value for the items in this hypothetical economy:
28 units iron + 56 units labor -> 56 units iron
16 units iron + 16 units labor -> 48 units gold
12 units iron + 8 units labor -> 8 units corn
Where 5 units of Corn is assumed to feed 80 units labor. This is a hypothetical economy with some flaws (e.g. iron used to make corn), but the logic would remain the same if we made it more precise (it's just more compilicated mathematically -- I know that you all are just as lazy as me when it comes to math :P).

Go ahead, use supply and demand curves to solve the economy. I want to see this.

Comrade-Z

4th August 2006, 23:56

If a vintage baseball card sells for $100,000 and a Mercedes-Benz sells for $30,000, does this indicate then that the card must have used more labor in its production than the automobile?

Think about what went into the baseball card, though: all of the labor of the celebrity player, including all of the years of his training, baseball practice, etc. Think of the labor that went into the construction of the facilities which were necessary before the baseball could be played in the first place. The physical production is only a small part of the cost because, in reality, people aren't paying for the physical production of the plastic in the shape of the card--they are paying for the symbol.

Furthermore, the more cards of a type that are produced, the less value I would expect from each of them, as this labor is spread out in between more cards.

Think about this: if an average person, with socially average, unskilled labor, could labor 2 hours to make himself a famous baseball player, and then labor another 1 hour to produce 100,000 cards with his face on it, then these baseball cards wouldn't be valued at jack squat, hardly.

Edit: Indeed, each card would be worth 3/100000 labor-hours. Nothing, practically!

Speaking of skilled labor, its capability of producing value can be determined by the labor that went into changing it from unskilled labor to skilled labor. Let's say a baseball player labors 10 years in training, and then has a career for 20 years. Those 20 years of work actually have 30 years of labor in them. So those 20 years of work, per hour, are 50% more productive of exchange value. By this example we can also see that in all cases, skilled labor can be reduced to its unskilled labor components. In this way, we can, for simplicity's sake, stick with using unskilled labor in all circumstances. We must also note that this is assuming that all of this labor is socially useful and socially average labor.

If I pay you to assist me in building a $100,000 home, your labor is worth $10.00 an hour, not half the value of the house minus costs.

It depends. Is my labor-power a commodity? Meaning, can I make any use of my labor-power by myself? Or is my labor-power only useful to me in exchanging it? In other words, do I reproduce my labor-power for any other reason than to exchange it? If it is only produced for exchange, then it is a commodity. And if it is a commodity, then its value is determined by the cost of its production (and reproduction). In other words, how much do you need to pay me or some other equivalent unemployed laborer so that I (or the unemployed guy) may live, come back to work the next day, and reproduce another generation of laborers, and above that, how much do you need to pay me so that I or some other equivalent unemployed laborer so that we choose to come back to work the next day, for want of leisure, extra goodies, etc.?

Let's say it takes the equivalent of $7.00 per hour to produce the necessities of my living. And then it takes the equivalent of $3.00 per hour to produce whatever extras I demand in life. In that case, my labor-power will be valued at $10.00 per hour. I could demand $20.00 per hour, but then you'd just hire an unemployed guy with equivalent quality of labor-power who only demands $10.00 per hour. So I'd need to band together with all of the other unemployed construction workers, as well as all the other construction workers with excess labor-power potential, and collectively bargain for $20.00 per hour. It's entirely within the realm of possibility.

Obviously, in this case your labor-power is not a commodity--it has a use-value to yourself outside of exchange because you already own the means of production (the house) necessary to make your labor-power useful. So your labor-power is valued according to your labor. In other words, you employ your labor-power for 10 hours and produce 10 hours of labor, which is worth 10 labor-hours--which is entirely different from the other guy whose labor-power is a commodity. In his case, he may employ his labor-power for 10 hours, but is only paid however many labor-hours are necessary to produce his wage (the equivalent of the necessities for getting him or some equivalent fellow to reproduce his labor-power), and we can be sure that that latter number is less than 10 hours, if you are to make a profit from employing him.

Epoche

5th August 2006, 00:46

Think about what went into the baseball card, though: all of the labor of the celebrity player, including all of the years of his training, baseball practice, etc. Think of the labor that went into the construction of the facilities which were necessary before the baseball could be played in the first place. The physical production is only a small part of the cost because, in reality, people aren't paying for the physical production of the plastic in the shape of the card--they are paying for the symbol.

Lovely.

Tigerman

5th August 2006, 19:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 08:12 PM

Oranges are only worth what the buying public is willing to pay for them no matter how much labor was expended. That is true of all commodities.

Oranges aren't "worth" anything because there is no evaluation in the understanding of their existence. They are a food item. They get eaten. They supply an organism with a substance to metabolize. An orange has no more "objective" existence than that. "Worth" is a loaded term which relies on pre-established errors in determing the nature of commodities. It is a form of fetishism.

"Pay" is nonsense as well, because "money" does not exist; it is a symbolisation of labour power, only it is appropriated as a credit device; money is "historical labour" in a future surplus form. "Money" didn't start economy. It was printed and intended to represent stocks of commodities and labour force. If somebody had a dollar...the work was already done. The "dollar" was put into the economy after it was already started. Trade systems existed long before currency was invented.

So here's what you got. You got a guy who, in a specific class consciousness, is influenced and conditioned to consider a commodity in a context of "value," decides what the orange is "worth," depending on his consumer schemata, and willfully trade his "money," which is a cache of labour (not his own, if he is bourgeois) for the orange.

The orange belongs to nobody. It has no "value," whatever that means. It is nothing more than the sum material conditions involved in its production and consumption.

Menger showed that the value of goods and services stem from the subjective tastes of all economic actors and not from the inputs of the production process.

"Tastes" are not subjective. That you like oranges is an objective fact. That you like oranges and Tom does not, is an objective fact. The orange is neither "good" or "bad" because our liking or disliking an orange is not a case of deciding the value of an orange. It is a matter of determining the oranges participation in an economy as its assigned function; to be eaten.

In this case, the "value," which doesn't really exist, is only the popularity of the commodity. But the popularity is contingent on the market context; something which would not exist in communism. Therefore, we see again that the "value" is not determined by the market discourse...because there isn't one, but rather the use of the commodity by the people who are both its producer and consumer.

I don't want to bother with the rest of the post because each example is a case of fetishism. Mistaking the objectivity of a commodity for an "opinion" about it. The "opinion" is contingent to a capitalistic system of class consciousnesses. For example, a Mercedes does not symbolize "class status" for a Marxist because a Marxist does not conceptualize a Mercedes outside of its objective function as a commodity. Someone involved in a class consciousness decides the value of a Mercedes based on his discourse with other consumers, and the competition for the ownership of the Mercedes creates the following value: you're "valuable" is you own one, and shit if you don't.

Nonsense.
Oranges aren't "worth" anything to you perhaps. Try taking one from the grocery store or try picking one from a tree in Florida and you will find out that the grocer and the grower certainly feel those oranges have value. Objective value may be that person A like oragnes and person B does not. But how much does person A like oranges? They are likely to more expensive off season and the consumers are fickle. Maybe an orange is valueless today, yet tommorrow I would be willing to pay $1 for for one.

That is thre subjective value I meant. Each of us exercizes it every time we make a purchase. Our values are in a constant state of flux. "Worth" is always sunjective. Some people think their homes are worth $100,000 others would not pay $50,000 for that house. What they house is ultimately worth is what some buyer is willing to pull out of his pocket and pay for it. That is a subjective value.

Money is a storage unit for exchanging property tittles to our wealth. Printed money is called fiat money and the American Fed inflated 95% of the wealth away over a short 100 year span. Coke-a-cola was a nickle in 1900 and a dollar plus in 2000. A "good suit" cost an ounce of gold in ancient Rome, and a good suit cost an ounce of gold when the American Double Eagle was stamped $20, and that same good suit costs about 1 ounce of gold today $700. Approx.

So labor has nothing to do with money supply or dollar value. That is all pure political dictat today. That's why I support a "gold standard." The government would not be able to manipulate or inflate the money supply if the world had a gold standard.

Those traders of long ago choose Gold as a medium of exchange long before governments formed for a reason. Gold is portable, divisable and has an intrinsic value all it's own.

Have a look at you 500 leaf sheets of printer paper to see exactly what ink spots on that paper have as an intrinsic value.

I can see the fatal flaw in your arguement already, you do not value the role of the entrepeneur. The bourgeois "exploits" the labor of others.

Exactly reversed. Without capital, all the labor on planet Earth sits idle. If the labor theory of value held water, India, being the most populous would have the greatest wealth.

But 1000,000 laborers can gather anywhere they like, without factories, tools and direction, all the labor is valueless.

The Orabge beklongs to the Organge grove owner. It has value in that people like to eat them and people like to drink the juice. You can only say oranges have no value to you. That's fine. Spinach has no value to me.

Taste are the most subjective value there is. From dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective

Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
Moodily introspective.
Existing only in the mind; illusory.
Psychology. Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
Medicine. Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
Grammar. Relating to or being the nominative case.
Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

You can look objective up for your self. Then you will see that you are not using the terms in their proper context. That is a commonality in the Marxian world.

Tigerman

5th August 2006, 19:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 08:27 PM

Menger showed that the value of goods and services stem from the subjective tastes of all economic actors and not from the inputs of the production process. Menger "proved" nothing. If you had actually read his longwinded "explanation" of economics, he uses marginal utility which can't be measured.

So you're up a creek without a paddle...Even Menger tried (and failed) to demonstrate that marginal utility is quantifiable.

There is no logical proof for the STV other than "Really, trust me, that's how the economy works." There's no math, no logic, and no proof.

This leaves a rather blatantly obvious question to be answered: who would believe this? :huh:

Here, point in case, find the value for the items in this hypothetical economy:
28 units iron + 56 units labor -> 56 units iron
16 units iron + 16 units labor -> 48 units gold
12 units iron + 8 units labor -> 8 units corn
Where 5 units of Corn is assumed to feed 80 units labor. This is a hypothetical economy with some flaws (e.g. iron used to make corn), but the logic would remain the same if we made it more precise (it's just more compilicated mathematically -- I know that you all are just as lazy as me when it comes to math :P).

Go ahead, use supply and demand curves to solve the economy. I want to see this.
One only needs to stick their head out the window to see that in all exchanges subjective values are exercized.

If I want to buy a newspaper, I pay the vendor a dollar and he gives me a newspaper. I value the newspaper higher than I valued the dollar because I did not have a paper and enjoy reading it. The vendor has many newspapers and values the dollar more.
That is subjective value exercized on both our parts and we are both in a happier state after the exchange. And what are we exchanging? Property ownership tittles. We forgo the formalities of a contract but all the essence is there in every exchange.

Here is the "value" of

28 units of iron + 56 units -> 56 units iron. That iron is only worth what I'm willing to pay for it no matter how much labor went into it.

16 units iron + 16 units labor -> 48 units gold. That gold is still only worth what I'm willing to pay for it no matter how much labor went into its production.

Here is a Url to Man, Economy and State by Murray Rothbard.

http://www.mises.com/rothbard/mes.asp

You wont be finding any math or graphs with supply and demand curves.
What you will find is

CHAPTER 1—FUNDAMENTALS OF HUMAN ACTION
(study guide in text and PDF)

1. The Concept of Action (p. 1)
2. First Implications of the Concept (p. 2)
3. Further Implications: The Means (p. 8)
4. Further Implications: Time (p. 13)
5. Further Implications (p. 17)
A. Ends and Values (p. 17)
B. The Law of Marginal Utility (p. 21)
6. Factors of Production: The Law of Returns (p. 33)
7. Factors of Production: Convertibility and Valuation (p. 38)
8. Factors of Production: Labor versus Leisure (p. 42)
9. The Formation of Capital (p. 47)
10. Action as an Exchange (p. 70)
Appendix A: Praxeology and Economics (p. 72)
Appendix B: On Means and Ends (p. 76)

Tigerman

6th August 2006, 00:57

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 4 2006, 08:57 PM

If a vintage baseball card sells for $100,000 and a Mercedes-Benz sells for $30,000, does this indicate then that the card must have used more labor in its production than the automobile?

Think about what went into the baseball card, though: all of the labor of the celebrity player, including all of the years of his training, baseball practice, etc. Think of the labor that went into the construction of the facilities which were necessary before the baseball could be played in the first place. The physical production is only a small part of the cost because, in reality, people aren't paying for the physical production of the plastic in the shape of the card--they are paying for the symbol.

Furthermore, the more cards of a type that are produced, the less value I would expect from each of them, as this labor is spread out in between more cards.

Think about this: if an average person, with socially average, unskilled labor, could labor 2 hours to make himself a famous baseball player, and then labor another 1 hour to produce 100,000 cards with his face on it, then these baseball cards wouldn't be valued at jack squat, hardly.

Edit: Indeed, each card would be worth 3/100000 labor-hours. Nothing, practically!

Speaking of skilled labor, its capability of producing value can be determined by the labor that went into changing it from unskilled labor to skilled labor. Let's say a baseball player labors 10 years in training, and then has a career for 20 years. Those 20 years of work actually have 30 years of labor in them. So those 20 years of work, per hour, are 50% more productive of exchange value. By this example we can also see that in all cases, skilled labor can be reduced to its unskilled labor components. In this way, we can, for simplicity's sake, stick with using unskilled labor in all circumstances. We must also note that this is assuming that all of this labor is socially useful and socially average labor.

If I pay you to assist me in building a $100,000 home, your labor is worth $10.00 an hour, not half the value of the house minus costs.

It depends. Is my labor-power a commodity? Meaning, can I make any use of my labor-power by myself? Or is my labor-power only useful to me in exchanging it? In other words, do I reproduce my labor-power for any other reason than to exchange it? If it is only produced for exchange, then it is a commodity. And if it is a commodity, then its value is determined by the cost of its production (and reproduction). In other words, how much do you need to pay me or some other equivalent unemployed laborer so that I (or the unemployed guy) may live, come back to work the next day, and reproduce another generation of laborers, and above that, how much do you need to pay me so that I or some other equivalent unemployed laborer so that we choose to come back to work the next day, for want of leisure, extra goodies, etc.?

Let's say it takes the equivalent of $7.00 per hour to produce the necessities of my living. And then it takes the equivalent of $3.00 per hour to produce whatever extras I demand in life. In that case, my labor-power will be valued at $10.00 per hour. I could demand $20.00 per hour, but then you'd just hire an unemployed guy with equivalent quality of labor-power who only demands $10.00 per hour. So I'd need to band together with all of the other unemployed construction workers, as well as all the other construction workers with excess labor-power potential, and collectively bargain for $20.00 per hour. It's entirely within the realm of possibility.

Obviously, in this case your labor-power is not a commodity--it has a use-value to yourself outside of exchange because you already own the means of production (the house) necessary to make your labor-power useful. So your labor-power is valued according to your labor. In other words, you employ your labor-power for 10 hours and produce 10 hours of labor, which is worth 10 labor-hours--which is entirely different from the other guy whose labor-power is a commodity. In his case, he may employ his labor-power for 10 hours, but is only paid however many labor-hours are necessary to produce his wage (the equivalent of the necessities for getting him or some equivalent fellow to reproduce his labor-power), and we can be sure that that latter number is less than 10 hours, if you are to make a profit from employing him.
Honus Wagner?Naw, the rareness of that card is what gives it value to a collector.
A printing press is a little cheaper than an automobile factory. The latest 20 years of baseball cards are valueless. In the 60's, kids traded cards, wore them out, stuck them in their spokes. In the 80's kids never even opend the wrappers and millions of kids held on to their cards. You can't even get what you paid for them, let alone earn a tidy profit like the savers of the 60's cards did.

Production cost also have very little to do with what an entrepenuer will ask for any given product. What the entrepeneur figures you are willing to pay is what is charged.

Apply that to Bill Gates and Microsoft Operating Systems.

10 cents worth of plastic is worth $150 to a lot of people who would like to have XP Pro as an operating system.

The labor question.
So far as I know any person can purchase a rake and a shovel and go into the lawn care, snow clearing business. Whatever buisness you can attract will determine your income. You are master of your own desitiny.

So if Nike wants to hire you, or most likely, you would like to hire out at Nike, the wage rate will have to be agreeable to you or back you go shoveling snow or whatever other enterprize an individual cares to engage in.

So your "labor power" is useful to yourself first and foremost. Hunting and trapping and fishing just to keep your self alive is very labor intensive. Most would sooner sell their labor to someone with the means to employ them so that they do not have to waste their lives hunting in the woods and gathering in the fields. That's called farming today and one man can do the work it used to take just about every memeber of the community to do. With our machines we have freed humanity to engage in every other kind of enterprize on can imagine.

Labor is indeed a scarcity. There is no shortage of rocks to process, wells to drill, farms to farm, etc. What there is a shortage of is "capital."
Can't very well build a factory if no one ever saved a dime to invest.
Try it.
Call all the labor you know, show up on some public plot of land you can claim by homestead rights and then have at her. Scrathing at the Earth with you hands or from tools made out of nearby brances and twigs will take a while to be able to feed the labor you have accumulated.

In short all the labor on planet Earth is valueless unless there is capital employed that can put the labor to work.

There must be purpose to the work and that is the role of the Entrepeneur plays in our midst.

Marxists do not value the role of the entrepeneur because it is believed that any body could run Microsoft just as well as Bill Gates did. Bill has no talent worthy of all that capital he accumulated according to the Marxian labor theory.

The workers don't understand that the most powerful of the workers is the worker with the idea.

Henry Ford was a man of ideas and little wealth. The banks laughed at him.
Here is something every socialist should read.

http://www.libertyhaven.com/thinkers/henry...alfunction.html (http://www.libertyhaven.com/thinkers/henryford/socialfunction.html)

The Social Function of
Mr. Henry Ford
April 19, 1937

Dorothy Thompson
c/o The New York Herald Tribune
230 West 41st Street, New York City

Dear Miss Thompson:

Mr. Ford is a great administrator of a great service organization. It is his social function to own and thereby to administer vast productive properties which consist in (1) materials in process of having services incorporated in them and (2) facilities, such as buildings, machinery, and tools, wherewith to work upon the materials and build into them the values that arise and are measured at the points of exchange and thence transformed into satisfactions.

In order to give socially creative administration to all this capital-these moving and these fixed properties-Mr. Ford calls to his aid many persons having specific training, skills, and capacities. All these persons enter into a contractual relation with him that guarantees to them compensations for their services (wages and salaries) so certain and definite that they are a first lien on everything that he has or owns. And if those wages and salaries are higher than in other organizations it is only because under Mr. Ford's superior administration and supervision these numerous subordinate persons can create, jointly with him, more of service, of value, and of satisfactions to the public and to themselves than in any other employment or occupation. This is what holds his organization together the superior creation of wealth and services under his administration and supervision. This is what socializes his business, keeps it on a basis of voluntary and mutual service, with ascending values, as between all the persons or interests cooperating and serving each other.

Look at how this carries on. His subordinates give him specific supervised services. He gives to them the supervision, discipline, if you wish, without which their various services cannot be creatively coordinated. He puts materials into their hands and provides them with marvelous facilities wherewith to work upon these materials, building potential values and satisfactions into them. And beyond giving the service of supervision to his subordinates he also must administer all the capital, the physical things, that he puts into their hands. This administration extends not alone to disposition and guidance of the facilities and materials used and worked on by them but also to merchandising of the moving capital into money or credits for redistribution - chiefly, among his subordinates as wages and salaries; secondarily, back into his productive properties as extension of capital; and lastly, to his own personal use and subsistence, and this last is probably smaller than that of many of his employees.

While in performing all these services Mr. Ford must supervise his subordinates, he himself is under a sharper and severer discipline. They can suffer no penalty beyond loss of further association of effort with him. In no case can they lose anything that they have already created or accumulated or otherwise own. But Mr. Ford, if his services are not well performed, must lose not only all further cooperation from them but must, if need be, forfeit the last dollar's worth that he has accumulated for a lifetime in his business, even including anything he may have set aside for his own personal use and subsistence. In short, if he fails creatively (profitably) to perform his supervisory and administrative services and to meet his administrative responsibilities his business becomes automatically liquidated, he loses all his property and on top of all this he is separated from further employment in the enterprise as completely and more irrevocably than he might have dismissed a former employee from under his supervision.

Now, Miss Thompson, is Mr. Ford and his work a social disease to be eradicated or is it a manifestation of the healthy functioning of social forces? What heavier responsibilities should fall upon him, what sharper discipline does he merit than he already has? What legal shackles can you imagine or suggest that might increase the volume or the value of the work he now so eminently performs, despite the political restraints and restrictions that are weighing so many down? Should he be set free, nationally and internationally, to extend more widely the scope and range of the voluntary obligations and responsibilities he has so far well met or should he be coerced and bludgeoned (democratically or otherwise) into a further subservience to politicians (public servants?) and the political creditors to whom they owe or hope for a continuance of their present office and power? Why not reduce Mr. Ford and all such as he who bear administrative responsibilities to the status of yes-men under the brute power of public officers with guns and jails and political obligations - and good intentions?

The piece goes on to tell you how much greater of a service Henry Ford did for humanity than anything any government ever did in the History of humanity.

ComradeRed

6th August 2006, 01:36

Tigerman

6th August 2006, 08:26

One only needs to stick their head out the window to see that in all exchanges subjective values are exercized. I did a little experiment: I went to the local 7-11 and told the clerk because my interests are subjective and his prices are based on my interests, he must magically change the prices for me because so sayeth the mighty Mises.

He just stared at me and told me to get the hell out of his store :lol: So much for that subjective theory of value, eh?

Maybe if I told him we'd both be happier afterwards he'd lemme do it.

If I want to buy a newspaper, I pay the vendor a dollar and he gives me a newspaper. I value the newspaper higher than I valued the dollar because I did not have a paper and enjoy reading it. The vendor has many newspapers and values the dollar more. But it doesn't work that way in practice. No one gives a damn what you think or how much you value the newspaper.

What they care about is that the item is sold at a price that gives them a profit, this is usually figured out by the elementary equation: revenues - expenditure = profits. This concedes to the inputs theory of value, for using simple math, you change it quite easily to be: revenues = expenditure + profits.

Your reasoning of "enjoyment" as a poor mask of marginal utility is rather comical, you still have to quantify it. Oh right, it's subjective, you can't quantify it. There is nothing quantifiable in value (*cough*price*cough*). :rolleyes:

That is subjective value exercized on both our parts and we are both in a happier state after the exchange. And what are we exchanging? Property ownership tittles. We forgo the formalities of a contract but all the essence is there in every exchange.
How the hell do you know this? Have you measured happiness lately? Or are you just pulling stuff from your ass?

You haven't shown any demonstration that the STV works, and as my experiment indicates, it outright fails in practice. Value isn't subjective in capitalism, in a barter economy you may have a point, but barter has gone the way of the dodo in capitalism.

So there is a huge problem in this "school" of yours, since it has absolutely no applications to modern society.

Here is the "value" of

28 units of iron + 56 units -> 56 units iron. That iron is only worth what I'm willing to pay for it no matter how much labor went into it.

16 units iron + 16 units labor -> 48 units gold. That gold is still only worth what I'm willing to pay for it no matter how much labor went into its production. Nope, sorry, you lose at the game of value. Perhaps you should learn basic algebra and logic? By your "logic", the economy would break down...whereas in reality (that dreaded foe of the Austrian economists!) there are objective(!) answers.

And for you folks at home, the correct answers are:

1.71 units of iron = 1 unit of gold = 4.3 units corn, if we notionally set the standard to gold.

According to the Austrians, the whole thing is "incorrect" :lol: But according to non-Neoclassicals and non-Austrians, there is an answer (and thus a working economy).

Here is a Url to Man, Economy and State by Murray Rothbard. I see you haven't read Menger's Principles of Economics.

Until you do, there is no point in arguing "This is what some other guy says Menger said, so that other guy must be right."

You were not willing to pay what the owner of 7-11 set as his subjective value for what ever it was you figured was priced too high. That in fact proves Mises is correct that both subjective values must be satisfied in order for an exchange to take place. In every exchange BOTH parties must be happy or there is no exchange.

Why don't you try that bargain where the person has some say on price? The clerck at 7-11 is not authorized to reduce prices.

So you did an exercize in futility.

But what stoped you from shopping elsewhere where the price is more satisfactory?

Your understanding of elementary economics is so poor as to be beyond believe.

I don't think you understand what "marginal utility means.

Like what makes you think I'm to stupid to quantify what I'm willing to pay for a newspaper? I can "quantify" it right down to the penny.

The newspaper is worth the asking price of a dollar. A second newspaper holds no value at all for me.

That is so simple it is child's play.

What do you not understand about that "quantification of value?"

Now I can not "quantify" what you would pay for a newspaper nor whether the second paper may be of value to you. Perhaps you are willing to buy the last newspaper the vendor has for sale at a quarter because you want to line a bird cage or treat your neighbor to a paper?

The marigina utility theroy holds true.
I measure my own happiness every waking moment of my life. I read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises that's how I know that each person must be satisfied or there will be no exchange on the free-market.

Barter has not gone the way of the dodo. Barter goes on every day in every exchange if you want to. Lots of people would never dream of paying the sticker price and lots of people would never dream of asking for a bargain.

The Austrian School has plenty of application to the modern world. Ludwig von Mises has many fans. His book Socialism (1922) was the first to reason out on paper why Socialism fails. Economic calculations are impossible in a centrally planned system. There is no "feedback" for an entrepeneur to make a judgement call.

The wheat rotted in the fields in the Soviet Union as box cars were allocated elsewhere. That kind of thing writ large. Black boots size nine for everybody because there is no customers to indicate their preference by demonstrating their willingness to spend money on Nike shoes and Jordache Jeans.
Man acts for only one purpose: to relieve uneasiness.
I have read Mises and therefore there is no need to read Menger. Menger was the father of the Austrian school. Mises and then Rothbard and now Lew Rockwell and Hans Hoppe can make all the arguements I need for today.
You may be able to put that nice little mathamatical formula of yours "on paper" to come up with a labor theory of value that works. However, the proof is in the pudding and the Russians proved socialism is unworkable.
Meanwhile, everywhere capitalism is introduced, prosperity breaks out. China, 1979 is the turning point. After 40 years of dedication to Marxism, Deng waves his hand and permits the peasant to profit from individual plots of land.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch32prc.html

[/QUOTE]Deng believed that a freer agriculture, trade and industry would function better. With Mao gone, his communes were being dismantled. People living on communal lands were permitted to farm collectively if they wished, but those who wished to farm individually were allowed to do so - on land that was not privately owned. Exhortations about equality were out, and in its place was an emphasis on peasant initiative and incentives. Both collective farms and individual growers were encouraged to make as much profit as they could and to invest in any kind of local business. People were encouraged to grow what suited them and to trade as they pleased.
[QUOTE]
Liberty is the mainspring of human progress.

The Sloth

6th August 2006, 16:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 04:06 AM
HELLO COMMUNISTS IM A CONSRVATIVE REPUBLICAN NAMED TOMMY P

WHY DON'T YOU LEFTYS UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS!!!

SUPPLY AND DEMAND WORKS GOOD BECUASSE MARKETS ARE EFFICIENT!!1

WHY DON'T YOU GET THIS?!!!
lol. for some reason, it's hard for me to believe that this guy is serious.. the caps lock, the mis-spellings, and the exclamation points are like a parody of conservatism.

Janus

7th August 2006, 19:34

I did a little experiment: I went to the local 7-11 and told the clerk because my interests are subjective and his prices are based on my interests, he must magically change the prices for me because so sayeth the mighty Mises.

He just stared at me and told me to get the hell out of his store So much for that subjective theory of value, eh?

Maybe if I told him we'd both be happier afterwards he'd lemme do it.
:lol: :lol: Maybe they'll let you do that at Mises gas station or something.

Meanwhile, everywhere capitalism is introduced, prosperity breaks out.

China, 1979 is the turning point. After 40 years of dedication to Marxism, Deng waves his hand and permits the peasant to profit from individual plots of land.
But Deng also invested a lot of resources on this project, when he shifted his focus from the rural areas to the urban ones, guess what happened?

Tigerman

7th August 2006, 21:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 04:35 PM

I did a little experiment: I went to the local 7-11 and told the clerk because my interests are subjective and his prices are based on my interests, he must magically change the prices for me because so sayeth the mighty Mises.

He just stared at me and told me to get the hell out of his store So much for that subjective theory of value, eh?

Maybe if I told him we'd both be happier afterwards he'd lemme do it.
:lol: :lol: Maybe they'll let you do that at Mises gas station or something.

Meanwhile, everywhere capitalism is introduced, prosperity breaks out.

China, 1979 is the turning point. After 40 years of dedication to Marxism, Deng waves his hand and permits the peasant to profit from individual plots of land.
But Deng also invested a lot of resources on this project, when he shifted his focus from the rural areas to the urban ones, guess what happened?

What?

The people all of a suden fell in love with the idea of working like dogs so their neigbors can benefit.

Forget it.

The motivation factor of socialism has never been solved.

People get out of bed and do hard laborious work only for their own self-interests.

The lesson of the "central storehouse" is "glad will be the man who can escape his labors."

That's what happens when everybody is entitled to an equal share of goods and services produced by the whole. People get out of bed and do the softest labor they can. Why would you work like a dog carrying steel all day long for the same pay as your neighbor's lazy kid gets for playing music in a rock band?

There sure seems to be a lot of women hanging at that kids feet and I'm slugging it out with the comarades here at the steel factory. And those guys at the pillow factory, lifting feathers!

How do you "quantify" the fringe benefits within the subjective values of millions of individuals?

The clear lesson in China is that when individuals are allowed to prosper from their own labors, there will be no end to the industriousness of those individuals.

Mises gas stations exist in every gas station.

In that if you are not happy with the price, you don't have to buy. Buy a bicycle and a cart. Take the bus. Rent a car one or twice a month or take a cab.

The facts of the matter are that Americans have shot themselves in the foot.

Oil was $30 a barrel before George W. Bush went to Afghanistan to secure pipeline routes. That little fiasco of starting a war in Iraq didn't help matters much.

Then there is the Hurricanes that shut down the New Orleans (Mouth of the Mississippi) terminals. It's all gotta hurt.

Couple all that with all the good the environmentalists have done by restricting oil drilling everywhere and it is a wonder oil is still so cheap.

So like I said to start the whole ball of wax off, it is the intevention of the state that is costing you guys. Even if the oil companies are selling record amounts of oil to power the war and making more profit than Columbian drug lords.

All those obsticles in the way of starting new oil companies sure helps too!

The jokester who goes to 7-11 does not seem to understand plain English.

He goes to 7-11 and finds the price too high. There will be no deal.

If he goes in there and buys a coke for $1 and leaves. It means he was satisifed that the coke was worth $1 to him right there and then at that particular moment in time.

If he balks at $1 then there will be no exchange as one party to the exchange values the $1 more than a coke.

There is a reason both vendor and buyer say thank you after exchanging goods or services for money. Both parties profit. Both parties are satisfied that they recieved more value in the echange. In the one instance, the buyer values the coke higher than the $1 and the merchant values the $1 higher than the coke.

Even on the black market, no one parts with their hard earned loot unless they are satisfied they value the product more than they value the money. The black marketeer values the money higher than the product. An exchange in properties takes place and both parties are satisfied that each other recieved the higher value.

Both parties can say thank you, each to the other.

The black market is the free-market writ large.

Janus

7th August 2006, 22:22

First of all, can you stop spacing out your posts so much?

The motivation factor of socialism has never been solved.
That must be why the Chinese were so motivated in the various socialist programs under Mao. :rolleyes:

The clear lesson in China is that when individuals are allowed to prosper from their own labors, there will be no end to the industriousness of those individuals.
There will be when the government no longer cares about them and takes their land away. :angry:

Couple all that with all the good the environmentalists have done by restricting oil drilling everywhere and it is a wonder oil is still so cheap.
Where have they done that? We have already started drilling the Arctic wildlife refuge just to sate our thirst for oil.

Tigerman

8th August 2006, 01:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:23 PM
First of all, can you stop spacing out your posts so much?

The motivation factor of socialism has never been solved.
That must be why the Chinese were so motivated in the various socialist programs under Mao. :rolleyes:

The clear lesson in China is that when individuals are allowed to prosper from their own labors, there will be no end to the industriousness of those individuals.
There will be when the government no longer cares about them and takes their land away. :angry:

Couple all that with all the good the environmentalists have done by restricting oil drilling everywhere and it is a wonder oil is still so cheap.
Where have they done that? We have already started drilling the Arctic wildlife refuge just to sate our thirst for oil.
Some of the Chinese certainly were motivated under Mao.

Some being the operative word. I loved PJ. Oroark's book Eat the Rich. He quotes a Chinese peasant. "Mao" said the the peasant, "he did too much."
More brilliant words shall never be spoken. The simplicity of a peasant summing up a government he had lived under.

I believe the Continenatal shelf has been off limits for quite some time. Not to worry Canada has lots of oil.Oil is what permits us to live in relative ease today. Machines do all the heavy labor. We no longer waer our bodies out. The car vs. The horse and buggie. Some polution and about 10 cents a gallon using a gold dime that is.

The horse. Dealing with poop on an industrial scale would be the first of a host of problems. Flies and other pestulance seem to abound wherever it is horses poop.
Horse poop stinks a lot worse than perfumes, hairspray and b.o underarm juice combined. It would not be pretty and would get pretty ugly if we all had our own personal horses. Lots of people died from horsekicks and falling off their horses too. That "thirst" for oil saves us from all that.

red team

8th August 2006, 10:15

The premises in which Capitallism rests are:

1. People can agree to be rewarded less in exchange for what they pay out which can include their labour

2. Everything including human beings can be owned or rented (which basically means being owned temporarily) and people can agree to having other people to own or rent them to perform work more valued than what is given out as the rent.

3. Ownership can extend to everything including things that cannot be used for any practical utilitarian purposes. These would include critically important strategic resources like land and productive assets. This of course rests on having #2 as valid.

Those three points are the most important to Capitalism anything else like democracy or liberty is just window dressing.

Tigerman

8th August 2006, 16:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 06:24 AM

Bill Gates can only entice me to do his bidding by making me a proposal. I will have to be satisfied that I will gain from the proposal or else I will find something better to do with my time too.

Even though Bill Gates is the richest of the rich capitalists, he does not have any "power" other than the power of pursuassion over me.
He can have power over you if he gets enough people on his side with his money.

Bill Gates can't do any of that. Bill's gotta pay me what I want to do his bidding.
No, he doesn't. He can collect a gang of people and force you to do his bidding.
I fail to see how Bill Gates having money gives him "power" over me. Can Bill draft me into the Army? Bill Gates has a lot of money. He has no more power than I.

I'm a pretty stubborn guy, I think I would prefer to shoot it out with Bill's gang.
I would prefer death to slavery so I don't see that any other human being has any "power" over me. That reasonings is like that other fellow who sees all kinds of external forces getting ahold of people and forcing them to spend their money against their will on things that were advertized on TV. The only thing I need to fear is politcal power. I can shoot it out with Bill's gang and make my case that it was self defence.

When the state sends their gang, they will have arrest warrents. Politcal power is the only real "power" to force people to do things against their will.

Janus

8th August 2006, 18:58

Not to worry Canada has lots of oil.Oil is what permits us to live in relative ease today. Machines do all the heavy labor. We no longer waer our bodies out. The car vs. The horse and buggie. Some polution and about 10 cents a gallon using a gold dime that is.
I wouldn't say that oil puts us in "relative ease" today especially with the oil problems we're facing today.

The horse. Dealing with poop on an industrial scale would be the first of a host of problems. Flies and other pestulance seem to abound wherever it is horses poop.
Horse poop stinks a lot worse than perfumes, hairspray and b.o underarm juice combined. It would not be pretty and would get pretty ugly if we all had our own personal horses. Lots of people died from horsekicks and falling off their horses too. That "thirst" for oil saves us from all that.
Not sure where you're going with this, no one even mentioned going back to riding horses.

Once again, why do you space out your posts so much.

Janus

8th August 2006, 19:00

I fail to see how Bill Gates having money gives him "power" over me. Can Bill draft me into the Army? Bill Gates has a lot of money. He has no more power than I.
You actually think that rich people have no more power than an ordinary man? I didn't know you were that removed from reality.

I'm a pretty stubborn guy, I think I would prefer to shoot it out with Bill's gang.
I would prefer death to slavery so I don't see that any other human being has any "power" over me. That reasonings is like that other fellow who sees all kinds of external forces getting ahold of people and forcing them to spend their money against their will on things that were advertized on TV. The only thing I need to fear is politcal power. I can shoot it out with Bill's gang and make my case that it was self defence.
Except that in today's world and your world, economic power equates with political power.

Since Bill is a lot richer than you, his gang is going to be a lot bigger and better equipped than yours which gives him free rein to do whatever he wants with you.

Tigerman

9th August 2006, 04:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:01 PM

I fail to see how Bill Gates having money gives him "power" over me. Can Bill draft me into the Army? Bill Gates has a lot of money. He has no more power than I.
You actually think that rich people have no more power than an ordinary man? I didn't know you were that removed from reality.

I'm a pretty stubborn guy, I think I would prefer to shoot it out with Bill's gang.
I would prefer death to slavery so I don't see that any other human being has any "power" over me. That reasonings is like that other fellow who sees all kinds of external forces getting ahold of people and forcing them to spend their money against their will on things that were advertized on TV. The only thing I need to fear is politcal power. I can shoot it out with Bill's gang and make my case that it was self defence.
Except that in today's world and your world, economic power equates with political power.

Since Bill is a lot richer than you, his gang is going to be a lot bigger and better equipped than yours which gives him free rein to do whatever he wants with you.
Bill Gates doesn't seem to really want to do too much other than sell me an operating system.

And....I dealt in the underground with broken copies of software and operating systems and had a pentium 1 until I just upgraded.

I gladly handed over $155 for that piece of plastic called XP Pro and I even bought Norton Internet Security.

What a difference. Iused to reformat my hard drive every 3 months with all that junkware.

I installed this OS In Feb when I bought a new manchine....The wonders of mass production making them cheaper and cheaper all the time.

It was worth every penny of it.

I come from a long line of stubborn Frenchmen. My Dad and my brother are still living. I don't think they would care how rich Bill was if he bumped me off for sport. Then there would be my uncles and cousins who might have something to say about Bill's obnoxious behavior.

I told the CN Rail to shove their Locomotive Engineer job up their rear end when they requested a drug test.

I was only going to pee in the bottle if the President of CN Rail gave it the taste test is what I told the powers that be.

So The CN Rail, with the vast resources of the Government of Canada could not force me to pee in the jar. Even went to jail some years later where they knew better than to ask me to pee in the jar. I would have refused. I ran the Manitoba Compassion Club at the time after being fired from the railroad.

Now I work in the underground economy. I have no desire to contribute to the unjustness of the Canadian Government, so I either cost them money by sitting in jail or I earn a living where I pay no tax.

So I am not your ordinary comerade.

I would not accept the CN Rails rules and we parted company. They don't owe me a living and I don't owe them a damn thing either.

So like I said, I fail to see how any man, no matter how rich he is can coerce me.

You need either the nerve to beat me up or the power of the state to put a gun in my back to get me to do things against my will.

Janus

9th August 2006, 04:18

Bill Gates doesn't seem to really want to do too much other than sell me an operating system.
Ever hear of a monopoly? In the society which you describe, Bill could add force through actual violence to his company's bag of tricks.

Tigerman

9th August 2006, 07:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 01:19 AM

Bill Gates doesn't seem to really want to do too much other than sell me an operating system.
Ever hear of a monopoly? In the society which you describe, Bill could add force through actual violence to his company's bag of tricks.
I heard of a monopoly.

Bill doesn't have one and never did.

Manitoba Hydro has a monopoly. So do the Western Canadian Wheat Board.
If you sell Hydro power in Manitoba, you will be arrested and you will go to jail.
If you sell your wheat to anyone except the Wheat Board you will go to jail.

A Monopoly is a piece of paper issued by the state. No Paper no monopoly.

So far as I know there are servral operating systems available.

Bill Gates really is at the mercy of the consumers.

The consumers decide who gets rich and who goes bankrupt in a free-society,

It is the consumers who chose the win-tel machines over the commodore and the apple and the ibms.

The riches of successful entrepreneurs is not the cause of anybodys poverty; it is the consequence of the fact that the consumers are better supplied than they would have been in the absence of the entrepreneurs effort. --Ludwig Von Mises-- The Anti-capitalist mentality

Janus

9th August 2006, 09:01

Bill doesn't have one and never did.
Right, that's why Microsoft was never charged with such accusations and forced to split. :rolleyes:

A Monopoly is a piece of paper issued by the state. No Paper no monopoly.
:blink: Monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly)

Bill Gates really is at the mercy of the consumers.
But if he were given free rein to do what he wants, then he could have much more power over his customers.

Zero

9th August 2006, 09:46

HA! :lol: :lol:

Originally posted by "Tigerman"+--> ("Tigerman")Bill doesn't have one and never did.[/b]

Is that so? Name one single commercial operating system besides Windows that is in unversal demand by consumers.

Originally posted by "Tigerman"+--> ("Tigerman")So far as I know there are servral operating systems available.[/b]
And to effectively use Linux you must already be knowlegeable in computer operations to the level of firmware (in most cases), and general hardware to be able to effectively install it.

Furthermore, this does not count as "commercial software" considering it is free to use, and reproduce. What does that remind you of? Could it be communal development? Or to put it bluntly, digital communism?

"Tigerman"@
Bill Gates really is at the mercy of the consumers.
Pure bullshit. Name one reason. He has enough money for him, and five generations of his children never to work again. Same with the VP Steve Ballmer (aka The Dancing Fat Fuck Who Screams Like A Girl, And Is The Reason To Use Linux (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc).)

"Tigerman"
The consumers decide who gets rich and who goes bankrupt in a free-society,
...

Right. In your "free society" I'm sure everyone will just love playing by social guidlines. Fuck, even in todays climate you're getting Enrons, Global Crossings, Tycos, Adelphias...

Lawless Capitalism is the worst euphemism for innocent slaughter I've ever heard.

Tigerman

9th August 2006, 10:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 06:02 AM

Bill doesn't have one and never did.
Right, that's why Microsoft was never charged with such accusations and forced to split. :rolleyes:

A Monopoly is a piece of paper issued by the state. No Paper no monopoly.
:blink: Monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly)

Bill Gates really is at the mercy of the consumers.
But if he were given free rein to do what he wants, then he could have much more power over his customers.
I looked up monopoly and you made my point.

I started on an Amiga 500 way back when.

There was atari too.

Those were big companies.

Still today, there is linux and there is the Mac.

No monopoly for Bill.

And the fact the state charged him just goes to prove that the state likes to put rich people in their place to show them who is really in charge. There should be no such a thing as an "economic criminal" in a free society.

That fact that there are pretty well tells you that you are not free, but very, very controlled indeed.

Bill Gates has no power over anybody. I bet I could take him in any kind of physical confrontation.

What is Bill going to do? Force me to buy Vista when it comes out?

He certainly will do his best to urge and entice me. Likely I will desire it. I'm a poor person so I just got into the XP world and that has eased my suffering plenty.

Listen. I like to make these intellectual arguements and appreciate the fact the opportunity is afforded.

I don't like to use foul language or resort to name calling and the like so I hope you can appreciate the fact that I can not percieve of this "power" wealthy people purpotedly have over me.

In so far as they buy the government, well that is a given. The government pools up 50% of the wealth created by every worker in the nation, you would have to be a fool NOT to be contributing to the campaigns of those who control the purse strings.

If I was wealthy, I would be sending huge donations to all politicans. Sending them my personal jet. I would do whatever it took to wrangle all the loot I possibly could out of the system. And, most importantly, I would buy lots of advertizing time on Wrestling just to keep the masses entertained while I was carrying about with all the underhanded chicanery.

In short, I would do what they are doing now I suppose.

But what if there was No Income Tax? What if that 50% of the wealth was still in the hands of those who earned it?

Well, I would pretty well be wasting my time buying politicians eh? There would be nothing they could do for me. I would have to actually get off my duff and sell useful products to people who want to buy them rather than just having a couple of dozen politicans to buy.

And who is that Greek fellow still wondering planet Earth looking for an honest man?

That's why we don't just change the names of the rascals in Government from some right winger to some left winger..... there all statists.

We get rid of that pool of money and the parasites of society will have to start working for a living.

Anarcho-capitalism is what can set you free. Freedom always means freedom from government.

So really Bill Gates has no power like the coercive force of the state.

Bill could offer a me a lot of money in an indecent proposal I suppose, but I can still say no prefering my dignity than 1 million for a sexual favor once or some other perversion some rich person may have.

Like I said, Bill can not make me do anything. I could even survive without a computer if I really hated him. I'm 50 and likely to be dead within 15 to 20 years and seeing as to how I made the first 30 years of my life without one, I'm pretty sure I could get by without one if I wanted too.

I have given up my television. Haven't owned one for three years.

Gives you some idea of what I'm doing here slugging it out with the lefties.

Janus

9th August 2006, 10:44

No monopoly for Bill.
He didn't actually hold a monopoly like the ones of old but he did employ monopolistic business practices.

And the fact the state charged him just goes to prove that the state likes to put rich people in their place to show them who is really in charge. There should be no such a thing as an "economic criminal" in a free society.
It wasn't about putting people in their place as much as it was about violating antitrust laws and practicing software bundling.

I bet I could take him in any kind of physical confrontation.
What if he had a lot of back-up. He's a rich man after all.

What is Bill going to do? Force me to buy Vista when it comes out?
Well, with the help of force, he could establish a monopoly and make it so that only his products are on the shelves provided that no one steals it all first. ;)

Anarcho-capitalism is what can set you free
Right, but with private property and guns, what prevents someone getting up a gang and robbing you especially someone who can afford to do so with as much resources as Bill?

Zero

9th August 2006, 10:45

Okay, first Macintosh is not an Operating System. Macintosh is a type of computer. The name of the Macintosh operating system is called OS. Most recently OS 10 'Tiger'.

Linux is not a commercial operating system.

Windows is a monopoly.

Tigerman

9th August 2006, 11:02

Originally posted by Zero+Aug 9 2006, 06:47 AM--> (Zero @ Aug 9 2006, 06:47 AM) HA! :lol: :lol:

Originally posted by "Tigerman"+--> ("Tigerman")Bill doesn't have one and never did.[/b]

Is that so? Name one single commercial operating system besides Windows that is in unversal demand by consumers.

("Tigerman")So far as I know there are servral operating systems available.[/b]
And to effectively use Linux you must already be knowlegeable in computer operations to the level of firmware (in most cases), and general hardware to be able to effectively install it.

Furthermore, this does not count as "commercial software" considering it is free to use, and reproduce. What does that remind you of? Could it be communal development? Or to put it bluntly, digital communism?

"Tigerman"@
Bill Gates really is at the mercy of the consumers.
Pure bullshit. Name one reason. He has enough money for him, and five generations of his children never to work again. Same with the VP Steve Ballmer (aka The Dancing Fat Fuck Who Screams Like A Girl, And Is The Reason To Use Linux (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc).)

"Tigerman"
The consumers decide who gets rich and who goes bankrupt in a free-society,
...

Right. In your "free society" I'm sure everyone will just love playing by social guidlines. Fuck, even in todays climate you're getting Enrons, Global Crossings, Tycos, Adelphias...

Lawless Capitalism is the worst euphemism for innocent slaughter I've ever heard. [/b][/quote]
You neglected to mention the Mac.

Bill Gates has no control over the demand.

Commodore existed and so did Atari.

Like the beta machine lots of people say those OS were better than Windows. But just like people chose VHS instead of beta despite the superior quality, people chose win-tel systems too. Likely because they were familiar with them at work.

And then there is Game boy and X box and Playstations and who knows what competing for the games revenue.

Linux can be traced to Corel and the idea was to go commercial. The point is the system exists and no one gets arrested for buying a Mac.

Ergo, Bill Gates has no monopoly, not to mention that some young brainiac is no doubt rejigging an OS right now that he hopes to put Bill Gates out of Business with.

Lets not forget that in all of this, the biggest of the big, IBM got left behind because the powers that be there didn't think anybody would be interested in having a home computer. They cost about $5000 way back then and what could people do with them?

Ever work an old Commodore 64? You had to punch in lots of code. None of this point and click stuff. So Bill Gates deserved to get rich for making it so simple to operate a computer, prettywell anybody who can read can now get on line.

And that $5000 computer, at a time when a 69 Charger with a 426 Hemi cost $5000 from the factory was a luxury item.

Mass production has reduced the price to the point where Pentium 1's now sell for $25 on the news groups. $75 for Pentium 3.

What do you suppose would happen if Bill Gates was accused of some henious crime and lost his reputation?

He would never sell another windows OS and Mac would soon have factories all over the countryside. People would resurect the old Amiga.

The consumers decided that Bill Gates was going to get rich and that IBM would be knocked out of the No1 Corporation spot.

The consumers decided they liked win-tel better for whatever reasons.

Bill Gates deserves every penny of the wealth he earned. Just look at the tremendous service he has done for humanity. To put a tool like this into the hands of the masses.

Bill Has been extremely wealthy for a very long period of time and is only now retiring from Microsoft to work more at the Bill and Linda Gates Foundation.

And of the trillion of dollars of wealth Bill has created, he won't be taking a single penny with him. Humanity owes Bill Gates a very deep debt of gratitude.

Those underlings who in all the preceding ages of history had formed the herds of slaves and serfs, of paupers and beggars, became the buying public, for whose favor the businessmen canvass. They are the customers who are always right, the patrons who have the power to make poor suppliers rich and rich suppliers poor. --Ludwig von Mises--

Capitalism doesn't slay anybody. It enrichens us all.

Bill Gates, because he is the richest of the Capitalists surely must be the worst.

How many bodies are attributeable to Bill Gates?

Not one, no where, no how.

Who did Bill Gates slaughter? Where are the bodies in Microsoft's wake?

Enron, Global Crosssing and the rest exist in a mixed economy, that is called Interventionism. Tough to lay their demise and chicanery at the door step of the market when state interventions of one form or another caused all the harm.

Janus

9th August 2006, 11:08

Bill Gates deserves every penny of the wealth he earned. Just look at the tremendous service he has done for humanity. To put a tool like this into the hands of the masses.
It's not in the hands of the masses because of intellectual property rights.

Bill Has been extremely wealthy for a very long period of time and is only now retiring from Microsoft to work more at the Bill and Linda Gates Foundation.

And of the trillion of dollars of wealth Bill has created, he won't be taking a single penny with him. Humanity owes Bill Gates a very deep debt of gratitude.
Gates is rich and donating a few millions of dollars is no sweat for him. He's not doing humanity a "great service" in any way.

Who did Bill Gates slaughter? Where are the bodies in Microsoft's wake?
So far he has slaughtered no one personally but he does exploit a large number of people particularly his workers.

Janus

9th August 2006, 11:11

Ergo, Bill Gates has no monopoly

List of companies acquired by Microsoft Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_acquired_by_Microsoft_Corporatio n)

Microsoft practically was a monopoly not too long ago. It can't be compared with the old monopolies like Standard Oil but it has definitely has some monopolistic practices.

As programs such as Linux become more popular, I think Microsoft's business power will diminish.

Tungsten

9th August 2006, 18:47

Janus

But if he were given free rein to do what he wants, then he could have much more power over his customers.
What an absurd statement. I could do whatever I wanted to whoever I wanted if I was given free rein. I wouldn't need money to do it, either.

What if he had a lot of back-up. He's a rich man after all.
That doesn't alter the legality of his actions.

Well, with the help of force, he could establish a monopoly and make it so that only his products are on the shelves provided that no one steals it all first.
With the help of force (which is, and should be illegal), he'd be put behind bars for doing so.

Right, but with private property and guns, what prevents someone getting up a gang and robbing you especially someone who can afford to do so with as much resources as Bill?
I'm not an anarcho capitalist, but that's a question I've often asked anarcho communists, who don't believe in government, police or army. With no private property, there would be nothing stopping gangs doing the same thing, only they'd have an even bigger advantage- they could go about robbing people legally.

Yamashita

9th August 2006, 20:36

Ironically the supply and demand economics you guys view under capitalism is no different than communism.

It's fairly easy , you see, under capitalism demand is dicatated by the market, and the market is dicated by us, the consumers.

Under communism, the community would get together and choose what is necessary, so they will choose the demands democratically. Well, this is no different than supply and demand under capitalism. The only difference is, that in communism if the demand for blue slippers is low, than supply will be terminated; and in capitalism at least you will be able to find it on ebay or something, but you will be able to buy it with your capital.

Janus

9th August 2006, 21:30

What an absurd statement. I could do whatever I wanted to whoever I wanted if I was given free rein. I wouldn't need money to do it, either.
How so, Tigerman wants to abolish the state, the very thing that protects property. Yet he still expects people to live harmoniously somehow.

That doesn't alter the legality of his actions.
Since there is no statement, a rich man can do whatever he wants with his money which includes using force.

With the help of force (which is, and should be illegal), he'd be put behind bars for doing so.
By whom, there is no law enforcement in Tigerman's world.

With no private property, there would be nothing stopping gangs doing the same thing, only they'd have an even bigger advantage- they could go about robbing people legally.
Why rob someone when you can get the same object for yourself? It makes the whole act pointless.

nickdlc

9th August 2006, 22:21

Under communism, the community would get together and choose what is necessary, so they will choose the demands democratically. Well, this is no different than supply and demand under capitalism. The only difference is, that in communism if the demand for blue slippers is low, than supply will be terminated; and in capitalism at least you will be able to find it on ebay or something, but you will be able to buy it with your capital. There is no competition between different units of production, labour is not a commodity, labour is voluntary. The means of production are owned collectively and workers exert their control over the means of production through workers councils.

Yes people need to consume goods and you see this as supply and demand since different branches of production must provide these goods. This is true for all societies though! The way in which society organizes itself to meet the needs of it's population will be fundamentally different though.

Zero

9th August 2006, 23:12

... :huh: Why are you arguing computers?

Originally posted by "Tigerman"+--> ("Tigerman")You neglected to mention the Mac.[/b]
The Macintosh is a completely different machine. You cannot run Windows on a Macintosh (There may be people selling Windows ports to Macintosh, but competing with Macintosh for control of operating systems is like competing with a Tiger over a dead cat.) Furthermore Apple has a monopoly on the Macintosh with their OS 10 'Tiger' operating system (OS being the only commercial operating system for Mac besides a port of Linux.)
Macintosh and PC are two completely different animals. Different shells, different code, different processer designs, different circutry, different hardware, different software, different networking protocols... etc.

Originally posted by "Tigerman"+--> ("Tigerman")Bill Gates has no control over the demand.[/b]
Bill Gates has 100% control over demand. You cannot expect a layman to know how to use any other operating system except for Windows. It is a universally accepted piece of garbage.

However one thing he will never have his greasy slimy hands on is the underground. Information begs to be free, and as long as I have a keyboard in my hands, I will be a data pirate.

("Tigerman")Commodore existed and so did Atari.[/b][/quote]
This has no relation to the operating system market. They even do not relate to each other. Atari was one of the first gaming systems ever, and the first gaming system not hacked from commercial hardware (heh, everyone should read up on OXO, or Spacewar! ^_^) while the Commodore PET was a fancy calculator (litterally, the chip design was based on Texas Instruments calculator designs.)

Atari, first released in late 1979, sold for $255 (with a $55 rebate) built for gaming.
Comodore 64, first released in 1982, sold for $595 built for gaming and office use.

("Tigerman")Like the beta machine lots of people say those OS were better than Windows. But just like people chose VHS instead of beta despite the superior quality, people chose win-tel systems too. Likely because they were familiar with them at work.[/b][/quote]
Or because it comes shipped pre-installed into the machine.

("Tigerman")And then there is Game boy and X box and Playstations and who knows what competing for the games revenue.[/b][/quote]
The Game Boy line is owned by Nintendo, and was made to play on the fly. The Xbox was built for first person shooter games, as well as more graphical intensive games (as the controller plainly shows.) The Playstation 2 was created for RPG, and sports games, again, as the controller shows. Also, one you forgot to mention is the Game Cube (or as I call it the Game Square :P ) it was created for party games, and other multi-player games (Super Smash Brothers, Mario, etc.) Each company has stated plainly though their lineup of games that they do not intend to directly compete with the other consoles for game linups, comparing them is Apples and Oranges.

("Tigerman")Linux can be traced to Corel and the idea was to go commercial. The point is the system exists and no one gets arrested for buying a Mac.[/b][/quote]
Wrong, Linux was created in part by Linus Torvalds (I met him!!! Tee hee!) off of a previously existing form of Unix called Minix. After years of slow growth his project got off the ground, and is what you see today. Origionally it was created for PC geeks, and still is (Only the corporations like RedHat which have agreed with him to sell the thing commercially to companies and corporations have been the public competition, while being 100% free to consumers.) However it has gone more public than it was origionally intended to. Linus has stated many times himself that he has no desire to compete with Windows, but this is exactly what is happening. I'm thankful as well. Maybe one day the stupid market-basket economy will adjust itself to what works. Or maybe we will be through with the fuckin thing.

One can only hope. ;)

("Tigerman")Ergo, Bill Gates has no monopoly, not to mention that some young brainiac is no doubt rejigging an OS right now that he hopes to put Bill Gates out of Business with.[/b][/quote]
Bill Gates has a monopoly. His operating system ships with over 99% of commercial and personal computers sold internationally.
"Some young brainiac" already exists. His name is Linus Torvalds, and your about 10 years too late.

("Tigerman")Lets not forget that in all of this, the biggest of the big, IBM got left behind because the powers that be there didn't think anybody would be interested in having a home computer. They cost about $5000 way back then and what could people do with them?[/b][/quote]
Since your such a genius when it comes to computer history you should know that Bill Gates got IBM off the ground (by steping in his friends faces of course) in personal computing. The vary first personal computers were 100-200 pound monsters created by IBM (the IBM PC), back in 1981 when it was about to be released they shopped around for operating systems. It was between Bill Gates and another guy. The other guy had a offshoot of Unix, and functioned boundlessly better then MS-DOS. But when IBM asked Bill to make them a operating system, he had nothing (and I mean actually nothing) to give them. He ended up taking hundreds of programs that had been created by his friends, sewing them together, adding a patent to it, and then presenting it to IBM. Well, they took it and that got him rolling. This is why he has so many enemies. He had the balls to steal his friends hard work, put his name on it, and then charge them money for it! Heck! He even shipped out cease-and-desist letters to his former college roomates that he stole some software from because they had been copying MS-DOS onto cassette and distributing it to thier friends.

IBM later got "left behind" as they refused to keep up with technology created mainly by hackers. They got hit pretty hard when the Apple was released by Woz. They lost most of their market share when the Apple 2 was released. They asked to die.

"Tigerman"@
Ever work an old Commodore 64?
Yes.

"Tigerman"
You had to punch in lots of code. None of this point and click stuff.
That is because a GUI operating system was not invented. You were working on what is called a Shell. The first GUI operating system was created by (I think) a company that IBM turned down at a showcase, thankfully Jobs was there and made Woz program it into the firmware. That was the first commercially bought computer with an operating system on top of a shell.

Zero

9th August 2006, 23:14

Originally posted by "Tigerman"+--> ("Tigerman")So Bill Gates deserved to get rich for making it so simple to operate a computer, prettywell anybody who can read can now get on line.[/b]
This is faulty in quite a few ways. Bill Gates did not create the first GUI operating system. Bill Gates did not make it "simple" to operate a computer (that is another reason IBM got fucked.) Bill Gates did not have anything to do with the Internet.

Bill Gates does not deserve to "get rich" from exploiting his friends labor, and all but destroying the early days of the open source movement. Thanks to his callous disreguard of people, he may contribute to the next computer revolution. This time, we will be on top. The term 'Computer Industry' has nothing to do with code, and in most cases is antithetical to elegent code.

Originally posted by "Tigerman"+--> ("Tigerman")And that $5000 computer, at a time when a 69 Charger with a 426 Hemi cost $5000 from the factory was a luxury item.[/b]
The C64 shipped for $595, not $5000. What you are thinking of is a IBM mainframe, which cost a little over a million dollars in the mid to late 60's. These computers were so large they took up a wall of a classroom (condensed from the Navy's first use of them for missile trajectory computing which took up almost half of a warehouse) and were never intended for personal use. MIT got one, Berkeley got one, and corporations got one.

("Tigerman")Mass production has reduced the price to the point where Pentium 1's now sell for $25 on the news groups. $75 for Pentium 3.[/b][/quote]
That is because they are pieces of useless technology. There is no need for them other then keepsakes.

"Tigerman"@
What do you suppose would happen if Bill Gates was accused of some henious crime and lost his reputation?
He would probably gain a considerable ammount of press coverage, and his market share wouldn't drop a penny.

"Tigerman"
He would never sell another windows OS and Mac would soon have factories all over the countryside. People would resurect the old Amiga.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA! :lol: :lol: . Your actually trying to be serious about this? Even if he murdered his wife, and went on a killing spree in downtown Redmond, he would probably be locked away in three or four years (after his army of lawyers finish attacking judges.) and released in thirty years his products would still be sold. Not because he has a better product, its because he has control of the market. If people were taught how to use computers, they would swich to Linux. Not just because its easier to use, but its faster, doesn't crash, is more protected, supports more overclocking, is easier on hardware, and is more fluid for coders. It is an all-around better operating system. There is no computer operating system that can compete on functionality on the same level as Macintosh and Linux. Linux leading by far. But does that matter? No, Microsoft has trained people to use worse products. The Consumers have no say in this, unless they go out and physically learn a new operating system.

Zero

9th August 2006, 23:15

The consumers decided that Bill Gates was going to get rich and that IBM would be knocked out of the No1 Corporation spot.
I've already made so many comments about this previously already. Go up and read those if you haven't already. I could easily write another page on how this statement is in no way in contact with reality, but as of right now I don't feel like it.

...
Okay, first off, its not win-tel. Its Win32 (Win standing for Windows, and 32 being the bit functions of the processor.) Secondly, no. You have to do mountains of extra work if you want to use anything else for your PC other than Windows. Likewise you need to do mountains of work if you want to use anything else for your Mac other than OS.

[quote="Tigerman"]Bill Gates deserves every penny of the wealth he earned.
Bill Gates deserves not a penny of what he has "done".

I don't think stealing code that is freely distributed, putting a patent on it, and selling it to corporations is in the same category as "work".

Just look at the tremendous service he has done for humanity. To put a tool like this into the hands of the masses.
So your telling me that if I go out and invent a car that only runs half of the time, breaks down often, and who's parts sometimes refuse to work together, I would be doing a tremendous service to humanity? Come on.

Bill Has been extremely wealthy for a very long period of time and is only now retiring from Microsoft to work more at the Bill and Linda Gates Foundation.
I support his charity. It's about time that filthy rich fuck gives back some of the money he has stolen.

And of the trillion of dollars of wealth Bill has created, he won't be taking a single penny with him. Humanity owes Bill Gates a very deep debt of gratitude.
Boo hoo. A thief by any other name is still a theif. I'd piss on his grave.

EDIT: Son of a ***** those quote limitations are annoying.

Yamashita

10th August 2006, 00:12

There is no competition between different units of production, labour is not a commodity, labour is voluntary. The means of production are owned collectively and workers exert their control over the means of production through workers councils.

What do you mean by "units" of production?
Labor is not a commodity! WOW! I knew that, which is why i find it funny when communists say that people will work as a "hobby".
Yes i know means of production will be owned collectively, and the worker councils will determine the demand therefore what will be produced. Which like i said is practically supply and demand. The council decides that blue slippers shouldn't be produced because there is no demand for them in the community, so they won't be produced.

Yes people need to consume goods and you see this as supply and demand since different branches of production must provide these goods. This is true for all societies though! The way in which society organizes itself to meet the needs of it's population will be fundamentally different though.

No, the needs of the population will be met the same way, democracy. But in capitalism this democracy comes by means of the market, the democracy in communism will come by means of the "worker councils" as you yourself put it. The difference is fairness, while in communism the production will cease, at least in capitalism you will still be able to find what you desire, you won't have to accept the fact that majority of society doesn't like blue slippers.

nickdlc

10th August 2006, 07:38

What do you mean by "units" of production? A shoe factory would be a unit of production. A computer factory would be a unit of production...

Labor is not a commodity! WOW! I knew that, which is why i find it funny when communists say that people will work as a "hobby". Why do you find that funny? Yes work will be voluntary and a "hobby".

Yes i know means of production will be owned collectively, and the worker councils will determine the demand therefore what will be produced. Which like i said is practically supply and demand. Yeah i guess you could see it as that but supply and demand has to do with how much of a certain good people will buy at certain price points. In communism the price of a good is how much labour went into it because the producers are not searching for a profit and so a certain good will only have one price. The worker doesn't even need to know the price since the good is free to him/her.

The difference is fairness, while in communism the production will cease, at least in capitalism you will still be able to find what you desire, you won't have to accept the fact that majority of society doesn't like blue slippers. What are you talking about? Workers control what to produce and this is much more democratic then in capitalism were i am just told what to do and earn my wage not really caring about what i do.

The majority of people on earth today like to eat food and not go hungry or face starvation instead of blue slippers but capitalism doesn't care even though it could provide millions of hungry and starving people with food easily, so what are you talking about?

Yamashita

10th August 2006, 18:32

A shoe factory would be a unit of production. A computer factory would be a unit of production...

Exactly, thats what i had thought, but somehow you say there is no competition amongst units of production. REALLY? :blink: Trust me, there is competition, it's called capitalism.

Why do you find that funny? Yes work will be voluntary and a "hobby".

How could work be voluntary? So i can stay home all day and still live? I will still have all the goods i have now? Seems like a lame excuse for lazy people. Plus this is down right utopian.

Do you know what a hobby is? A hobby would be like collecting stamps, climbing mountains, shooting targets or whatever tickles your pickle. I really doubt working in a factory or even doing CEO paperwork is a hobby.

Yeah i guess you could see it as that but supply and demand has to do with how much of a certain good people will buy at certain price points. In communism the price of a good is how much labour went into it because the producers are not searching for a profit and so a certain good will only have one price. The worker doesn't even need to know the price since the good is free to him/her.

How much of a certain good people would "buy" , that's in the current market capitalist economy. When people don't want to buy a certain good at all, the production of that good is ruined, do you agree?? So would it be in communism, it's practically the same crap man; only difference is in capitalism you can go and search for someone to produce what you want even if there is 0 demand for it in the market, while in communism you wouldn't be able to do that.

So in communism the price of a good would be how much labor went into it? Do you realize how stupid that is? You guys value sweat more than skills. Anyways the value of a product has nothing to do with what im talking about with supply and demand. Plus , since goods are free, than how come your talking about value? If i spent 40 hours creating a good and sweat like a motherfucker, and worked my ass off, and you made another product with simply no effort and we exchange it , what's the point of all this? It's retarded in my eyes, it's conflictive, it makes no sense.

It would make sense, if, since you said products would be valued by how much effort went into it, than a product with a lot of effort would trade in a couple of other products that had less effort in them.

What are you talking about? Workers control what to produce and this is much more democratic then in capitalism were i am just told what to do and earn my wage not really caring about what i do.

The majority of people on earth today like to eat food and not go hungry or face starvation instead of blue slippers but capitalism doesn't care even though it could provide millions of hungry and starving people with food easily, so what are you talking about?

Im trying to explain something simple to you, the fact that supply and demand the way it is viewed in capitalism is practiacally the same thing in communism theoretically. For example , we as consumers decide the demand for such and such product, if one product has no demand, chances are production will go down the drain and very limited. While in communism it will be the same, the worker councils will decide which products have demand or not, much like the market does in communism. While in communism, when a product has no demand, production will cease. So in communism if you like that product that has no demand your fucked, at least in capitalism you will still be able to get a product that has no demand at all, understand now? In essence they are both democratic, one fairer than the other, the market is dictated by us the consumers, you don't need a vote like in the worker councils to decide something democratically, as consumers through the market system we decide democratically production.

Tigerman

10th August 2006, 19:56

Originally posted by Zero+Aug 9 2006, 08:15 PM--> (Zero @ Aug 9 2006, 08:15 PM)
Originally posted by "Tigerman"+--> ("Tigerman")So Bill Gates deserved to get rich for making it so simple to operate a computer, prettywell anybody who can read can now get on line.[/b]
This is faulty in quite a few ways. Bill Gates did not create the first GUI operating system. Bill Gates did not make it "simple" to operate a computer (that is another reason IBM got fucked.) Bill Gates did not have anything to do with the Internet.

Bill Gates does not deserve to "get rich" from exploiting his friends labor, and all but destroying the early days of the open source movement. Thanks to his callous disreguard of people, he may contribute to the next computer revolution. This time, we will be on top. The term 'Computer Industry' has nothing to do with code, and in most cases is antithetical to elegent code.

("Tigerman")And that $5000 computer, at a time when a 69 Charger with a 426 Hemi cost $5000 from the factory was a luxury item.[/b]
The C64 shipped for $595, not $5000. What you are thinking of is a IBM mainframe, which cost a little over a million dollars in the mid to late 60's. These computers were so large they took up a wall of a classroom (condensed from the Navy's first use of them for missile trajectory computing which took up almost half of a warehouse) and were never intended for personal use. MIT got one, Berkeley got one, and corporations got one.

("Tigerman")Mass production has reduced the price to the point where Pentium 1's now sell for $25 on the news groups. $75 for Pentium 3.[/b][/quote]
That is because they are pieces of useless technology. There is no need for them other then keepsakes.

"Tigerman"@
What do you suppose would happen if Bill Gates was accused of some henious crime and lost his reputation?
He would probably gain a considerable ammount of press coverage, and his market share wouldn't drop a penny.

"Tigerman"
He would never sell another windows OS and Mac would soon have factories all over the countryside. People would resurect the old Amiga.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA! :lol: :lol: . Your actually trying to be serious about this? Even if he murdered his wife, and went on a killing spree in downtown Redmond, he would probably be locked away in three or four years (after his army of lawyers finish attacking judges.) and released in thirty years his products would still be sold. Not because he has a better product, its because he has control of the market. If people were taught how to use computers, they would swich to Linux. Not just because its easier to use, but its faster, doesn't crash, is more protected, supports more overclocking, is easier on hardware, and is more fluid for coders. It is an all-around better operating system. There is no computer operating system that can compete on functionality on the same level as Macintosh and Linux. Linux leading by far. But does that matter? No, Microsoft has trained people to use worse products. The Consumers have no say in this, unless they go out and physically learn a new operating system. [/b][/quote]
The questions begs, how did those in control of the market get consumers to buy VHS instead of Beta? The public chose to go with Windows and the is what made Bill Gates rich. Linux might be the better system but so was the Beta.Bill Gates made computing a whole lot easier for generations of people. Even Windows 3.1 was hard to operate. Windows 95 is when the point and click world made computing easy for everybody.

Not everyone was comfortable installing drivers and all that.A lot of people are still lost in computerland.

How about an essay on all the people who "exploited" Bill Gates?

Let's here about all those employee's of Microsoft and how Bill screwed themn at every turn and held a gun to their backs so they couldn't leave.

We won't be hearing about none of that because Bill Gates does not "exploit" anybody. He offers them an opportunity to earn a higher wage than they would earn elsewhere.

That is the only reason people show up at the Microsoft plant and go to work.

None of those people would be earning that money if it was not for Bill Gates' labor. So do Mircosoft employee's exploit Bill? I don't think so.

I think there is a mutal beneficial agreement going on.

So when both parties benefit, how can one be exploiting the other?

It is not the labor that Microsoft employee's put into the products that makes them valueable. It is the fact that the consuming public values Windows operating system more highly than any others that gives Microsoft products their value.

Wage labor really has nothing to do with it.

Microsoft is successful because of Bill Gates talent and no other reason.

Janus

11th August 2006, 02:10

Let's here about all those employee's of Microsoft and how Bill screwed themn at every turn and held a gun to their backs so they couldn't leave.

We won't be hearing about none of that because Bill Gates does not "exploit" anybody. He offers them an opportunity to earn a higher wage than they would earn elsewhere.
Wage-slavery is inherently exploitative.

So when both parties benefit, how can one be exploiting the other?
Because the whole deal is lopsided.

Microsoft is successful because of Bill Gates talent and no other reason.
Originally yes but now it is also successful because of the input of the workers and inventors.

red team

11th August 2006, 02:53

Microsoft is successful because of Bill Gates talent and no other reason.

Originally yes but now it is also successful because of the input of the workers and inventors.

Not even. Only if you consider "talent" to be the plundering of originally public ideas as his own private property. Computer operating systems theory was already quite well known at the time. His patched-up work of several others who didn't intend to have their work hoarded by one person was nothing out of ordinary in terms of technical novelty.

Tigerman

11th August 2006, 04:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 11:11 PM

Let's here about all those employee's of Microsoft and how Bill screwed themn at every turn and held a gun to their backs so they couldn't leave.

We won't be hearing about none of that because Bill Gates does not "exploit" anybody. He offers them an opportunity to earn a higher wage than they would earn elsewhere.
Wage-slavery is inherently exploitative.

So when both parties benefit, how can one be exploiting the other?
Because the whole deal is lopsided.

Microsoft is successful because of Bill Gates talent and no other reason.
Originally yes but now it is also successful because of the input of the workers and inventors.
Wage-slavery is what allows those with less talent to feed off the abilities of others.

Bill Gates created a lot of wealth and made planet Earth a better plce to be. He never held a gun to no one's back and he never twisted a single arm. Everything Bill did, he did by gaining the cooperation of others. If the employee's of Microsoft earn a high wage, and they do, it is only because Bill Gates' ability to sell Operating Systems.

Now the world got by just fine for millions of years without the computer. No one really needs one to have food, clothing and shelter.

Indeed many people still have never been on-line and have no intention of going on-line.

My best friend drives a Gravel truck and has a wheeled excavtor. He's feeling pressure from his 10 year old to get in touch with the times. So, Bill Gates, entrepeneur, mulitrillionaire doesn't have any of my chums money.

The computer is a frivilious product. The Internet is highly over rated.

So all the power to Bill. Out of silica sand and petroleum products and magnets and rusty surfaces....voila. AND I love the fact that Bill Gates had little to do with the Internet. He sure knew how best to take advantage if it.

Bill Gates is the proper authority to determine what he will pay his employees.They could always become share-holders too.

All the workers and inventors in the world are nothing without salesmanship and entrepeneurship to guide it all.

That's where the left falls short. They do not value the labor input of the entrepeneur when the person is indeed the most important person in a prosperous and free commonwealth.

Bill Gates created more wealth than all the Presidents of the United States combined.

"There is a natural aristocracy among men.The grounds of this are virtue and talents... There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class... The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendency."
--Thomas Jefferson--to John Adams, 1813.

nickdlc

11th August 2006, 10:43

Exactly, thats what i had thought, but somehow you say there is no competition amongst units of production. REALLY? blink.gif Trust me, there is competition, it's called capitalism. Nope in communism units of production don't compete hence why it's not capitalism.

How could work be voluntary? So i can stay home all day and still live? I will still have all the goods i have now? Seems like a lame excuse for lazy people. Plus this is down right utopian. Yes you can stay home all day and be lazy if you like, although human nature being the way it is you would probably get really bored and start doing something productive.

Plus, since goods are free, than how come your talking about value? If i spent 40 hours creating a good and sweat like a motherfucker, and worked my ass off, and you made another product with simply no effort and we exchange it , what's the point of all this? It's retarded in my eyes, it's conflictive, it makes no sense. First goods are not exchanged they're distributed. Don't you understand that when the means of production are held in common exchange is basically impossible? The reason why a communist system still keeps track of how much work goes into something is because any complex and dynamic economy such as communism would need to be able to facilitate efficient distribution (ie not be wasteful) and to be able to expand production so that the needs of people are met. Basically how many hours of labour that went into something is for accounting purposes.

Im trying to explain something simple to you, the fact that supply and demand the way it is viewed in capitalism is practiacally the same thing in communism theoretically. For example , we as consumers decide the demand for such and such product, if one product has no demand, chances are production will go down the drain and very limited. And im trying to tell you that any society has to be able to guage what it wants and what it doesnt want. If you think the law of supply and demand will still be in effect in communism thats fine but your wrong. In capitalism you have to have effective demand to be able to consume something (ie have enough money) In communism you don't you take what you like free of charge! This totally shatters the law of supply and demand as it operates under capitalism and hence why supply and demand doesnt opperate. Maybe to make it easier for you, national health care in canada as far as i know does not opperate through supply and demand. People get treated regardless of income, just because many people demand it and it is supplied by the government doesnt mean nationalized health care works on the basis of supply and demand.

While in communism it will be the same, the worker councils will decide which products have demand or not, much like the market does in communism. See abouve.

Tigerman

11th August 2006, 18:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:44 AM

Exactly, thats what i had thought, but somehow you say there is no competition amongst units of production. REALLY? blink.gif Trust me, there is competition, it's called capitalism. Nope in communism units of production don't compete hence why it's not capitalism.

How could work be voluntary? So i can stay home all day and still live? I will still have all the goods i have now? Seems like a lame excuse for lazy people. Plus this is down right utopian. Yes you can stay home all day and be lazy if you like, although human nature being the way it is you would probably get really bored and start doing something productive.

Plus, since goods are free, than how come your talking about value? If i spent 40 hours creating a good and sweat like a motherfucker, and worked my ass off, and you made another product with simply no effort and we exchange it , what's the point of all this? It's retarded in my eyes, it's conflictive, it makes no sense. First goods are not exchanged they're distributed. Don't you understand that when the means of production are held in common exchange is basically impossible? The reason why a communist system still keeps track of how much work goes into something is because any complex and dynamic economy such as communism would need to be able to facilitate efficient distribution (ie not be wasteful) and to be able to expand production so that the needs of people are met. Basically how many hours of labour that went into something is for accounting purposes.

Im trying to explain something simple to you, the fact that supply and demand the way it is viewed in capitalism is practiacally the same thing in communism theoretically. For example , we as consumers decide the demand for such and such product, if one product has no demand, chances are production will go down the drain and very limited. And im trying to tell you that any society has to be able to guage what it wants and what it doesnt want. If you think the law of supply and demand will still be in effect in communism thats fine but your wrong. In capitalism you have to have effective demand to be able to consume something (ie have enough money) In communism you don't you take what you like free of charge! This totally shatters the law of supply and demand as it operates under capitalism and hence why supply and demand doesnt opperate. Maybe to make it easier for you, national health care in canada as far as i know does not opperate through supply and demand. People get treated regardless of income, just because many people demand it and it is supplied by the government doesnt mean nationalized health care works on the basis of supply and demand.

While in communism it will be the same, the worker councils will decide which products have demand or not, much like the market does in communism. See abouve.
National Health Care in Canada has Canadians dying in the Hallways.

We call it "Hallway medicine" here in Manitoba where the demand for medical service far exceeds the supply.

That is another tenet of economics. Any good or service that is subsidized will have a greater demand than if the same goods and serives were left to the free market.

None of that is to mention the control of the medical schools. Only so many are allowed to graduate and that keeps wages high.

The problem with collectively owned means of production is that economic calculations become impossible. What products does the factory make and in what quantity?

How would research and development be allocated when there is nothing to guide the way?

The Soviet Union was lucky that Capitalism co-existed or there would have been even more poverty and despair. The Soviets could compare what capitalists were charging and they could copy the direction capitalism was taking.

Prices play a very important role in economic matters. They are the benchmark that signal the entrepeneur as to what direction to take production in.

It was not so long ago that all clothing was made at home. Blue Jeans are blue jeans. But the styles change today with the popularity of the latest movies and stars.

Every single person who wants a pair of the latest tightest fitting Jeans you could imagine will be able to purchase them. The reason is simple enough, those store that carry the latest trend will be patronized by the hordes and the entrepeneur who serves them will profit handsomely.

Meanwhile the company making the standard farmer type overall popular with the work crowd will still have that market. Until a hick movie comes along and popularizes the overall jean look and those out fits start flying off the shelfs. Entrepeneurs know what is hot and what is not by the feedback they get in the form of prices. The factory producing overall style jeans will likely be in a position to produce more of the now in demand overalls and they will profit handsomely until the next movie comes out or the fad runs its course.

Fad is the one thing the Soviets did not conceptualize.

"Black boots size nine" is a popular right wing shot at the left wing.

It symbolyses everything that was wrong with the Soviet Union's economy.

Soviet teens were no different than their American counterparts. They coveted jeans with style and they wanted Nike's and other stylish footware.

Who ever was running the central plan of footware was not reactive to the demands of the Soviet youth. The Central Planner like black boots and that is what the Factory produced for everybody. And since size nine was the most equal shoe size there was, that's what they made.

The black market thrived in stlyish blue jeans and footware in the Soviet Union.

So prices allow the entrepeneur to determine the latest trends and profit is what allows them to gear up to serve the market's latest trends in style.

The labot theory of value kind of falls apart when we take "covetousness" into account. All the girls want pants that fit like Brooke Shields. And your delievering coverall Blue Jeans...... and the people are not happy in their overalls with black boots size nine.

Yamashita

11th August 2006, 21:04

Nope in communism units of production don't compete hence why it's not capitalism.

Ohh, i thought you were talking about right now in capitalism.

Yes you can stay home all day and be lazy if you like, although human nature being the way it is you would probably get really bored and start doing something productive.

Wait a minute, did you just say what i think you said? HUMAN NATURE!! OHH GOD! I thought that word was forbidden by communists? i thought you guys advocated that such an idea of HUMAN NATURE was preposterous! That the idea of greed and selfishness was a bullcrap theory. :rolleyes:

Why would i get bored? If ill be doing something productive! Which will most likely be chilling with my friends, playing sports or doing whatever it is we do, although i still don't know how ill be helping the society, and im sure everyone would wan't to be like me, and spend time with family and friends, doing BBQ coockouts, and going off to the beach, ahh yes, i forgot that ROBOTS would be doing the necessary jobs to keep soceity working lmao

Dude, i left my job 3 months ago, im 19 years old going to college, living off my parents, and if it was up to me i would stay my whole life like this. I highly doubt many people desire going out and doing something "productive" in the way you think about it. That productive would be hobbies, and having fun, which excludes WORK! You have an altruistic mentallity that frankly is flawed. Like i said, utopian and im sure you know that, im basically that voice inside of your head telling you what you already know.

First goods are not exchanged they're distributed. Don't you understand that when the means of production are held in common exchange is basically impossible? The reason why a communist system still keeps track of how much work goes into something is because any complex and dynamic economy such as communism would need to be able to facilitate efficient distribution (ie not be wasteful) and to be able to expand production so that the needs of people are met. Basically how many hours of labour that went into something is for accounting purposes.

Ahh yesss DISTRIBUTION, ok. So the worker council determines how much of something i SHOULD need huh, you will give me the toothpaste that should last me a month, if it doesn't im screwed, and have to wait for the worker council give away. You guys convince me more and more why i believe the things i believe.

And im trying to tell you that any society has to be able to guage what it wants and what it doesnt want. If you think the law of supply and demand will still be in effect in communism thats fine but your wrong. In capitalism you have to have effective demand to be able to consume something (ie have enough money) In communism you don't you take what you like free of charge! This totally shatters the law of supply and demand as it operates under capitalism and hence why supply and demand doesnt opperate. Maybe to make it easier for you, national health care in canada as far as i know does not opperate through supply and demand. People get treated regardless of income, just because many people demand it and it is supplied by the government doesnt mean nationalized health care works on the basis of supply and demand.

Society has to be able to gauge what it wants and doesn't want, umm yes sounds like supply and demand to me! How am i wrong? It's decided through the market, which is decided by us, it's called democracy ;)

In capitalism you have to have effective demand to be able to consume something (ie have enough money)In communism you don't you take what you like free of charge! This totally shatters the law of supply and demand as it operates under capitalism and hence why supply and demand doesnt opperate.

Hahahaha, that is halarious, please how the hell does this "shatter" the law of supply and demand! Your merely saying that some people can't afford something, obviously if something is highly expensive production would be limited, but thats umm yeah, supply and demand!

And by the way, national healthcare is not a production line or something! :lol:

Ok, let me ask you something, there will be no demand for products under communism?

MrDoom

11th August 2006, 21:16

Supply will equal demand. If it can't, in the case of rare materials, rationing will be required.

Janus

11th August 2006, 23:35

Wage-slavery is what allows those with less talent to feed off the abilities of others.
Bill Gates created a lot of wealth and made planet Earth a better plce to be.
He never held a gun to no one's back and he never twisted a single arm.
Everything Bill did, he did by gaining the cooperation of others.
You can't really be too picky about jobs in a capitalist society.

Bill Gates is the proper authority to determine what he will pay his employees.
No, he is not.

They could always become share-holders too.
Yeah, but there shares are so low that they are unable to participate in running the corporation. That's left up to the big dogs.

All the workers and inventors in the world are nothing without salesmanship and entrepeneurship to guide it all.

That's where the left falls short. They do not value the labor input of the entrepeneur when the person is indeed the most important person in a prosperous and free commonwealth.
He started the idea and corporation but it is still built on the backs of the people who work with him. If he were to leave, hardly any dent would be made.

Abolish Communism

12th August 2006, 00:15

QUOTE
Bill Gates is the proper authority to determine what he will pay his employees.

No, he is not.

Well, who else would be the "proper authority".

Here's a question for you Janus:

Am I the proper authority to destroy a tree so that I can extend my home for a new member of my family? If not me, then who?

Am I the proper authroity to pick an apple off of a tree from the Cleavland National Forest? If not me, then who?

Is the State of California the proper authority to determine that cars should be driven on the right, and not on the left.

Can Bill Gates set fire to his workshops, presuming he doesn't try to defraud the insurance company?

Marxism has, for the most part, no answer to many questions, even in post industrial society.

Human evolution, technologically speaking, evolved from banging the rocks together. In a post Revolutionary society, should the DOP be the proper authority to determine who should be able to bang the rocks together?

Janus

12th August 2006, 00:50

Human evolution, technologically speaking, evolved from banging the rocks together. In a post Revolutionary society, should the DOP be the proper authority to determine who should be able to bang the rocks together?
:blink:

Well, who else would be the "proper authority".
What I am trying to say is that as an employer, Gates's views on his worker's salaries is inherently biased.

Abolish Communism

12th August 2006, 01:20

Janus, it appears you didn't understand my "Human evolution" statement. Others will perhaps explain it to you. It was about 9th grade level of understanding.

Janus

12th August 2006, 01:24

Janus, it appears you didn't understand my "Human evolution" statement. Others will perhaps explain it to you. It was about 9th grade level of understanding.
:lol:
So if I said who determines who bangs the rocks together in a capitalist society, would that make sense to you?

Abolish Communism

12th August 2006, 01:46

Janus:

What I wrote required some understanding of things outside of the forum. There was allusion and irony. I will try my best not to use these literary tools in future when writing to you.

Janus

12th August 2006, 02:04

What I wrote required some understanding of things outside of the forum. There was allusion and irony. I will try my best not to use these literary tools in future when writing to you.
I knew that was supposed to be ironic, I just didn't understand the point of that or what concrete point you were trying to raise.

Perhaps you should seek less spam and more debate in the future?

red team

12th August 2006, 02:10

Human evolution, technologically speaking, evolved from banging the rocks together. In a post Revolutionary society, should the DOP be the proper authority to determine who should be able to bang the rocks together?

DOP is not the government or some bureaucrat telling you what to do. There's no "dictatorship" in the way you view as one person or a group of people telling you what to do. What you see now in countries proclaiming to be "Socialist" is more like a form of authoritarian welfare statism. DOP is a set of expectations that the prevailing class in society set as the standard of values and behaviour. Right now, since we have the DOB the set of expectations is for everybody to follow "values" that are a combination of all of the following: Nationalism, Patriotism, Wage Work, Workplace Regimentation, The whole work-rush hours-weekend-leisure cycle, Consumerism, Family, Religion, Trading Up (keeping up with the other fellow), Money, Profits, Hierarchy

It's just that the DOB have ruled for so long that the above "values" seems "natural" so you assume them to have been around since time immemorial. When the DOP have last just as long then different values will seem just as "natural" as the values you assume today because it would be near-universal save some primitive tribes living somewhere in a jungle. We rarely will need to have some government official come over to you to tell you what to do. Direct state intervention by representatives of the class is more of a sign of weakness than of strength. Is just that you simply won't be allowed to act differently given the "natural" constraints the system imposes on society, like if someone were to act "differently" out of corporate expectations of behaviour they'll quickly find themselves out of an income for living.

Janus

12th August 2006, 02:16

DOP is not the government or some bureaucrat telling you what to do. There's no "dictatorship" in the way you view as one person or a group of people telling you what to do. What you see now in countries proclaiming to be "Socialist" is more like a form of authoritarian welfare statism
Right, the people are the dictatorship of the proletariat through their collective action.

nickdlc

12th August 2006, 03:28

Wait a minute, did you just say what i think you said? HUMAN NATURE!! OHH GOD! I thought that word was forbidden by communists? i thought you guys advocated that such an idea of HUMAN NATURE was preposterous! That the idea of greed and selfishness was a bullcrap theory. rolleyes.gif I was saying that human nature is not to be greedy and so i made a remark that human nature is the exact opposite of what you think it is. I was just trying to annoy you cause i knew you'd go on some rant.

Why would i get bored? If ill be doing something productive! Which will most likely be chilling with my friends, playing sports or doing whatever it is we do, although i still don't know how ill be helping the society, and im sure everyone would wan't to be like me, and spend time with family and friends, doing BBQ coockouts, and going off to the beach, ahh yes, i forgot that ROBOTS would be doing the necessary jobs to keep soceity working lmao Sure you can have cook outs and it'll be really fun. Increasingly technology will do most of the arduous tasks, yop. In fact i'll probably have many a cookout myself but maybe i'll be late because im so involved with my "hobbies" :o

Dude, i left my job 3 months ago, im 19 years old going to college, living off my parents, and if it was up to me i would stay my whole life like this. Good for you. You see you have the "right to be lazy" under communism and if you feel like doing that it's fine.

Ahh yesss DISTRIBUTION, ok. So the worker council determines how much of something i SHOULD need huh, you will give me the toothpaste that should last me a month, if it doesn't im screwed, and have to wait for the worker council give away. You guys convince me more and more why i believe the things i believe. Nope you can pick up your tooth paste at stores but the store isn't buying toothpaste from a factory and neither are you hence why it's distribution not trading. You have a right for your breath not to be stinky :lol:

Society has to be able to gauge what it wants and doesn't want, umm yes sounds like supply and demand to me! How am i wrong? It's decided through the market, which is decided by us, it's called democracy wink.gif Then apparently every society throughout history has had the law of supply and demand and has been democratic since they've had to guage what was to be produced also.

And by the way, national healthcare is not a production line or something! laugh.gif but it's producing something ie healthy labourers for the capitalist state. If it wasn't producing something why would we have it?

Ok, let me ask you something, there will be no demand for products under communism? Yes there will but there are demands for products under every society! "deja vu"

Yamashita

12th August 2006, 04:43

I was saying that human nature is not to be greedy and so i made a remark that human nature is the exact opposite of what you think it is. I was just trying to annoy you cause i knew you'd go on some rant

nick, face it , you got nailed, like i said, im that voice inside of your head telling you what you already know my friend.

Sure you can have cook outs and it'll be really fun. Increasingly technology will do most of the arduous tasks, yop. In fact i'll probably have many a cookout myself but maybe i'll be late because im so involved with my "hobbies"

Im sorry to bring this news to you, but by the time all work will be automated by machines your bones won't even be able to be carbon dated! :lol:

Good for you. You see you have the "right to be lazy" under communism and if you feel like doing that it's fine.

Ok seriously, enough of the funny talk, lets get serious here, how could you not see this is conflictive? How could you not see this is downright utopian! How could you not see this is not going to work? If you think this is perfectly normal and it will work, than surely i don't even begin to grasp the mental situation the people i talk to through here have...everyone is going to be lazy like me and not want to do shit except whatever they want, its common sense.

Then apparently every society throughout history has had the law of supply and demand and has been democratic since they've had to guage what was to be produced also.

lol, apparently you yourself anwsered it for me: "there are demands for products under every society! "deja vu" "....

but it's producing something ie healthy labourers for the capitalist state. If it wasn't producing something why would we have it?

It's producing healthy labourers? Gee how much for one? :lol: It's merely offering a service that it's demands don't have to be voted for democratically or anything, they are obvious necessities anyone needs, like food or water.

Yes there will but there are demands for products under every society! "deja vu"

Yes, deja vu=CAPITALISM! Your very easy to reason with ... ;)

nickdlc

12th August 2006, 05:18

nick, face it , you got nailed, like i said, im that voice inside of your head telling you what you already know my friend. Yes i feel so bad.

Ok seriously, enough of the funny talk, lets get serious here, how could you not see this is conflictive? How could you not see this is downright utopian! How could you not see this is not going to work? If you think this is perfectly normal and it will work, than surely i don't even begin to grasp the mental situation the people i talk to through here have...everyone is going to be lazy like me and not want to do shit except whatever they want, its common sense. And yet this is what communism stands for. Every society has been class divided where one group was forced to produce for another. The way in which it's happened has been different but work has never been enjoyable for the majority. Communism ends class society and the stupid idea that without some sort of force everyone is lazy. Like i said the reason why you do anything in communism is because you understand that if you want society to remain classless and for you to be provided everything you need free of charge you volunteer your time doing whatever you find interesting.

they are obvious necessities anyone needs, like food or water. And yet how many millions of americans go with out the neccesity of health care. More than the population of canada!

On the issue of supply and demand you seriously have no understanding how bourgeois economists use the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand that may help you out.

red team

12th August 2006, 05:35

Im sorry to bring this news to you, but by the time all work will be automated by machines your bones won't even be able to be carbon dated! :lol:

Not necessarily. Things aren't automated now because there's no demand for it to be. There's an excess of desperate, unskilled and uneducated workers who's willing to take any job. It's back to the Maslow pyramid of needs the lowest being physiological. That's why if your country is a third world shithole where it's basically being used as a resource colony you'll risk anything to cross borders and work at a job that could at least keep yourself alive.

It's the same thing we have witness before in history. 2000 years ago the theoretical knowledge for a rudimentary kind of steam engine was already discovered in Roman times. It was used to automatically open temple doors (as if by magic) but nothing else relating to using it for assisting labour and material production came of it. As it was it was just a fancy toy. Why? Demand. Why bother innovating energy consuming machines for labour when you have all that natural labour in the form of slaves?

nickdlc

12th August 2006, 05:52

Never saw this gotta reply

We call it "Hallway medicine" here in Manitoba where the demand for medical service far exceeds the supply. I live in manitoba also! crazy. Anyway of course it's not perfect but how many people die in the states because they cant pay for their treatment in the first place, have there been studies? Not to mention the cut backs in health care it's no wonder health care is strained.

That is another tenet of economics. Any good or service that is subsidized will have a greater demand than if the same goods and serives were left to the free market. Is that wrong? My composter was subsidised and if it wasnt i probably wouldn't have got it. I got a cheap deal and i don't produce as much waste anymore. Not to mention the free soil it will produce!

The problem with collectively owned means of production is that economic calculations become impossible. What products does the factory make and in what quantity? That's the problem with any society throughout history. It gets "answered" in different ways obviously.

You think people will stop counting in communism? If people cosume X amount of item 1 then the factory produces that amount, of course numbers will not match 100% but thats not possible anyway, statistics would help.

How would research and development be allocated when there is nothing to guide the way? Research and development happens because people want to develop and research. The thing thats guides is money right? not so in communism.

Prices play a very important role in economic matters. They are the benchmark that signal the entrepeneur as to what direction to take production in. Well in communism people aren't dependant on wage labour to survive so how things are allocated and whats popular will be very different.

Fad is the one thing the Soviets did not conceptualize. Russia wasn't socialist, it was state capitalist, if peoples needs didnt get met that was because it wasn't in the plan.

So prices allow the entrepeneur to determine the latest trends and profit is what allows them to gear up to serve the market's latest trends in style. Thanks for the capitalism 101 but there is no profit motive in communism it's strictly production for use.

Tigerman

12th August 2006, 18:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:36 PM

Wage-slavery is what allows those with less talent to feed off the abilities of others.
Bill Gates created a lot of wealth and made planet Earth a better plce to be.
He never held a gun to no one's back and he never twisted a single arm.
Everything Bill did, he did by gaining the cooperation of others.
You can't really be too picky about jobs in a capitalist society.

Bill Gates is the proper authority to determine what he will pay his employees.
No, he is not.

They could always become share-holders too.
Yeah, but there shares are so low that they are unable to participate in running the corporation. That's left up to the big dogs.

All the workers and inventors in the world are nothing without salesmanship and entrepeneurship to guide it all.

That's where the left falls short. They do not value the labor input of the entrepeneur when the person is indeed the most important person in a prosperous and free commonwealth.
He started the idea and corporation but it is still built on the backs of the people who work with him. If he were to leave, hardly any dent would be made.
Once Bill Gate leaves Mircosoft in two years the company will not be the same.

That is another failure of the left. The false belief that anybody could be put into Bill Gates shoes and the resulting wealth would all be the same.

That is not true. There are no shortage of companies that have been poorly manged right into bankruptsy.

Wal-Mart is not the same company without Sam Wal-Mart.

Sam had a Buy American policy. People used to be able to identify with Sam Walton. m Sam drove a pick-up truck so the dogs could ride with him.

Now that Sam is gone, there is no strong persona to identify as the leader.

The same will happen with Microsoft. Once Gates is gone there will be no strong identifiable leader that people know they can trust. That will be a chink in their armor.

The Soviets used to put some political lacky in charge of the factory. It is no wonder that none of them ran efficiently. Managing is a skill. Being a people person is a skill.

Any other person in charge and Microsoft would have been unlikely to reach the heights it did. Bill's talent carried that company to where it is.

We shall have to wait and see what direction Microsoft takes when Bill leaves.

Bill Gates did not build Microsoft on the backs of anybody. For one thing the people Bill employees work for him and not with him. It is Bill's bidding that they are paid to do. If they don't like what Bill is paying them, they are free to go anywhere else they like.

Zero

12th August 2006, 18:45

Originally posted by "Tigerman"+--> ("Tigerman")Once Bill Gate leaves Mircosoft in two years the company will not be the same.[/b]
Yeah, one less rich reactionary fuckwit thief. So sad.

Originally posted by "Tigerman"+--> ("Tigerman")That is another failure of the left. The false belief that anybody could be put into Bill Gates shoes and the resulting wealth would all be the same.[/b]
Because he stole software he is unique?!?!
Jesus, I thought you'd get that by now. He is not a genius programmer, he is not a selfless provider of operating software. He is just another geek who was apparently never taught that jacking other peoples shit is not a cool thing to do.

("Tigerman")That is not true. There are no shortage of companies that have been poorly manged right into bankruptsy.[/b][/quote]
Hence the obvious problem with hierarchial structures; They all fail.

("Tigerman")Wal-Mart is not the same company without Sam Wal-Mart.[/b][/quote]
Wal-Mart was a chain of decent grocery stores (who would sell American produce) up untill Sam Walton died. His (I think two) sons then turned it into the pot of shit it is today. For all the people they have killed I hope a large object falls onto their stretch limo.

("Tigerman")Sam had a Buy American policy. People used to be able to identify with Sam Walton. m Sam drove a pick-up truck so the dogs could ride with him.

Now that Sam is gone, there is no strong persona to identify as the leader.[/b][/quote]
And this is a bad thing? It lets people concentrate on how badly Wal-Mart is fucking countries over.

("Tigerman")The same will happen with Microsoft. Once Gates is gone there will be no strong identifiable leader that people know they can trust. That will be a chink in their armor.[/b][/quote]
Okay, first off, the day I "trust" Bill Gates is the day I die. Secondly, they have so much ammased wealth, I doubt theres going to be anything that can take them down within the next five decades (besides revolution of course ;) )

("Tigerman")The Soviets used to put some political lacky in charge of the factory. It is no wonder that none of them ran efficiently. Managing is a skill. Being a people person is a skill.[/b][/quote]
Or because the people can manage themselves. Unions, councils, direct action groups, consensus...

("Tigerman")Any other person in charge and Microsoft would have been unlikely to reach the heights it did. Bill's talent carried that company to where it is.[/b][/quote]
Yeah, probably because they wouldn't have had the heart to rip their friends off of hundreds of hours of programming, and then stab them in the back with copyright laws.

"Tigerman"@
We shall have to wait and see what direction Microsoft takes when Bill leaves.
With any luck we will have a person who knows shit about fuck about computers, and he runs the company into the ground.

"Tigerman"
Bill Gates did not build Microsoft on the backs of anybody. For one thing the people Bill employees work for him and not with him. It is Bill's bidding that they are paid to do. If they don't like what Bill is paying them, they are free to go anywhere else they like.
... :lol:

Tigerman

12th August 2006, 18:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 02:53 AM
Never saw this gotta reply

We call it "Hallway medicine" here in Manitoba where the demand for medical service far exceeds the supply. I live in manitoba also! crazy. Anyway of course it's not perfect but how many people die in the states because they cant pay for their treatment in the first place, have there been studies? Not to mention the cut backs in health care it's no wonder health care is strained.

That is another tenet of economics. Any good or service that is subsidized will have a greater demand than if the same goods and serives were left to the free market. Is that wrong? My composter was subsidised and if it wasnt i probably wouldn't have got it. I got a cheap deal and i don't produce as much waste anymore. Not to mention the free soil it will produce!

The problem with collectively owned means of production is that economic calculations become impossible. What products does the factory make and in what quantity? That's the problem with any society throughout history. It gets "answered" in different ways obviously.

You think people will stop counting in communism? If people cosume X amount of item 1 then the factory produces that amount, of course numbers will not match 100% but thats not possible anyway, statistics would help.

How would research and development be allocated when there is nothing to guide the way? Research and development happens because people want to develop and research. The thing thats guides is money right? not so in communism.

Prices play a very important role in economic matters. They are the benchmark that signal the entrepeneur as to what direction to take production in. Well in communism people aren't dependant on wage labour to survive so how things are allocated and whats popular will be very different.

Fad is the one thing the Soviets did not conceptualize. Russia wasn't socialist, it was state capitalist, if peoples needs didnt get met that was because it wasn't in the plan.

So prices allow the entrepeneur to determine the latest trends and profit is what allows them to gear up to serve the market's latest trends in style. Thanks for the capitalism 101 but there is no profit motive in communism it's strictly production for use.
Health care became "unaffordable" in America as the government legislated more and more human services into the catagory of health care.

Insurance now has to cover all kinds of things like "alcoholism" and so-called dependancy treatment. Some even have to cover marriage counseling. On and on it goes, none of that is cheap.

The vast majority of Americans could not only afford healthinsurance in the 1950's, doctors made house calls.

The more the state intervened, the more expensive insurance got, to the point where low income and now mid-income Americans can no longer afford health care. The service was legislated into unafforablity.

And since your from Manitoba, you already know that we have had about a dozen people drop dead while waiting for treatment in the hospital hallway.

Your composter was subsidized and if you recall, the city ran out of free blue boxes to hand out. Now they charge $5.

I am proud of the fact that I have never filled a re-cycling box. Don't own one and don't want to.

You got lost on the economics arguement.

How does an entrepeneur decide what to charge for any given product?

He takes an educated guess at what the market will bear.

If the labor theroy of value were to be applied, very few items would be produced.

If money did not guide innovation, then there would be little innovation.

That's why the Egyptian plow remained unchanged from the time of the ancient Greeks up until John Deere comes along in the 1800's.