Free markets bring equality

[Anti-Red]

Contrary to all the hooey that is spilled out here, free markets bring equality. For in a command economy there is no way to better your life other than to go through the ranks of government. In a TRUE capitalist economy (not the one we have now in the Bush regime, which is corporatist-capitalism) people would be equal but richer as well. Check out the site below. It was made by a man who has his Ph.D, probably more educated than your communist theorists will ever get.

Holistic Politics (http://www.holisticpolitics.org)

[ComradeRed]

He has a Ph.D and the intelligence of a four year old.

He assumes that a free market is a system of linear differential equations, and his argument is "This is how 'real economists' do it." As if it were to hold water.

This however totally defeats the argument that capitalism creates innovation, which is a complex system of nonlinear partial differential convoluted equations.

So which is it: equality that is mathematically and empirically wrong, or innovation which is mathematically and empirically true?

Tough choice. I'd have to tell Dr. Jack Ass to eat his mail order degree, since he doesn't know jack diddly.

By the by, this tidbit may be beyond your comprehension, but corporatism is capitalism. (*gasp!*)

[MrDoom]

I love how they always call them "command" economies, yet never mention planned or decentralized participatory economic ideas.

Everything looks bad when you put the worst foot forward.

[Anti-Red]

Anything planned ahead is sure to be a failure, produce high unemployment, AND make people poorer in the long run. It looks good at first but ultimately fails. Look at Europe.

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 01:00 AM
He has a Ph.D and the intelligence of a four year old.

He assumes that a free market is a system of linear differential equations, and his argument is "This is how 'real economists' do it." As if it were to hold water.

This however totally defeats the argument that capitalism creates innovation, which is a complex system of nonlinear partial differential convoluted equations.

So which is it: equality that is mathematically and empirically wrong, or innovation which is mathematically and empirically true?

Tough choice. I'd have to tell Dr. Jack Ass to eat his mail order degree, since he doesn't know jack diddly.

By the by, this tidbit may be beyond your comprehension, but corporatism is capitalism. (*gasp!*)
It just so happens that Austrian or British Classical Economics is my hobby.


There are no such linear differential equations in anything that I have read at the Mises.com or lewrockwell.com sites.

For instance, Human Action is Mises' masterpiece.


Mises is Karl Marx's harshest critic. He wrote Socialim in 1922 and is widely understood to be the first economist to reason out why socialism fails.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap14sec3.asp

XIV. THE SCOPE AND METHOD OF CATALLACTICS
3. The Pure Market Economy

Mises explains the Pure Market Economy in straight forward English without a single graph or any other trickery.

Logic and reason coupled with rational thought are the tools of the Austrians.

Capitalism "creates" nothing. Individuals who are permitted to benefit from the fruits of their labor, think about that labor and improving it to benefit themselves, productivity increases have been going on for hundreds of years rasing the standard of living for everybody.

There is a reason George Washington gets pulled to his first Inauguration in a horse drawn carriage and in less than 200 years Americans had landed on the Moon.

Good old fashion "Yankee know-how" fills the pages of the inventors and inovators.

The reasons are simple enough. No king to plunder your wealth. Have at her. What you sow, you reap. 1787-1865 the Classic Liberal thought of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Munroe rule America bringing more prosperity to more people faster than any other Country history had ever known.

Free Trade becomes the rule rather than the exception as The Dutch-East Indie Company competed with British and French on the high seas to deliver goods from one place to another in pursuit of profits.

The Clipper ship, faster lighter, they carry cargo, steampower... capitalism drove it all.

Lincoln changes all of that when he destroy's Jefferson's republic and impliments the Lincolnian model of democracy that is chasing monster all over the Earth now.

Murray Rothbard was Mises No 1. deciple. He did not support incorporation, simply because incorporation would not be needed in a free-market economy.

From Man, Economy and State.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north408.html
Rothbard's Defense of Contractual Limited Liability
by Gary North




Finally, the question may be raised: Are corporations themselves mere grants of monopoly privilege? Some advocates of the free market were persuaded to accept this view by Walter Lippmann's The Good Society. It should be clear from previous discussion, however, that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations.



There you have it. Rothbard, Anarcho-capitalism's strongest defender telling you in black and white that there is simply no need for incorporation in a free market economy.

Rothbard hated the state and saw no merit in the state meting out special privilidge to anyone.

See, no linear graphs or any words to big for Joe Lunchbucket to understand.

I was a Railroad Engineer with a Canadian grade 12 and I self educated my way out of servility for the last 6 years.

I don't have no little Bo-peep diploma's but I sure can read English and the plain talkers have always been my favorite.

Mark Twain, the Rugged Individualist personified was who I identified with when I recieved my government education.

So I like to think I know enough to defend the free-market.

Drug dealing. The Black market is always a good example to point to because it is truely free of all government intevention. All the BS is cast aside and we can gaze at the tranaction without any rose colored classes what so-ever.

So what is wrong with the pure free-market economy when the evidence is that it delievers whether your government approves or not?


Capitalism is an ECONOMIC system. It is not a SOCIAL system.

Capitalism deliever more variety of more goods and serives to your doorstep. That is all.

Greed, corruption, envy, power over others, those are all human frailties that occur because there are no perfect people.

So the free-market will not be perfect. There will always be unethical people regardless of the system of goods and service production.


They say you never really understand the law until you have been to jail. Well I went to jail where I read economic books.

There ain't very much beyond my comprehension.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Anti-Red+--> (Anti-Red) Anything planned ahead is sure to be a failure, produce high unemployment, AND make people poorer in the long run. It looks good at first but ultimately fails. Look at Europe.[/b] Thus it "must" be true :rolleyes:

We all know that Europe is a "Command Economy", as is so evident that no evidence be required to demonstrate it.


Tigerman

It just so happens that Austrian or British Classical Economics is my hobby. Well, the two are not one in the same. British Classical Economics, I assume you mean Adam Smith and David Ricardo.

Austrian economics has a weird way of working, as far as the "praxeology" "works". As far as practical concerns, it's simply semantical word games as is evident in Mises "famous" proposition: Man Acts.

I'm sorry if I start sounding like Rosa (I love you Rosa! :wub: ), but what is meant by "acts"? It's an ambiguous statement, which allows the Austrians to create a trap. If you agree, there is no problem.

Disagree and the ambiguity bites you in the ass. Disagreeing is apparently acting (whatever that may be) and thus you would be wrong to disagree.

This ambiguous pseudo-analytical framework is a logical death-trap. You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. It's thus a bad method.

And tigerman, this is more of a post style annoyance other than anything else, but why in the hell are there so much empty space between the paragraphs?


There are no such linear differential equations in anything that I have read at the Mises.com or lewrockwell.com sites. Sadly neither Mises nor Rockwell thought it "good enough" to use math...probably because they were too lazy or lacking the mental faculty to understand mathematics.

If you look up Walras' original works, you will note shocking similiarities between the mathematical structure of the consumer's behavior to maximize utility and the (concept in physics) principle of least action.

Shockingly, Walras basically "copy/paste"-ed Newtonian classical mechanics into economics. There should be no surprise since the Newtonian system was used as a template in everything since its creation (even music!).

I would be highly suspect if someone mentioned Menger using math beyond simple algebra since he never really got into anything mathematically other than Marginal Utility. Ditto for Alfred Marshall.

You won't find math in the Austrian "school"...nor will you find empiricism for that matter.


Mises is Karl Marx's harshest critic. He wrote Socialim in 1922 and is widely understood to be the first economist to reason out why socialism fails. You haven't read anything by Bohm-Bawerk, have you?

At any rate, the STV fails to provide any explanation as to why there is an instantiation of a subjective entity (value)...since it would require for some instantiation to occur there to be an objective quality therein (value).

Saying "how much you prefer one good to another is subjective" is fine and dandy but explains nothing.

Further, and perhaps worse, capitalism doesn't work according to the Austrian theory...perhaps if the Austrians took their heads out of their asses and looked empirically (*gasp*) at the economy a more accurate model could be attained.

The problem is that (and "technically" this is more of a Neoclassical rule) if Marginal Cost is equal to Marginal Revenue, there is no profit but everything is magically allocated just right. The problem is that there is profit, which implies there is a shortage. This contradicts the notion that the STV allocates everything fine and dandy.

Now, as far as Mises "critique" of Marx it's too comical to be taken seriously. Mises basically construes a giant straw man derived from his misunderstanding of the LTV from the concept of labor. Then he criticizes it.


Mises explains the Pure Market Economy in straight forward English without a single graph or any other trickery. The Song Big Rock Candy Mountain did it better, it had a catchy tune. That's more than I could say for Mises.

Without any coupling to material reality, Mises maunders about some idealistic society of selfishness.


Logic and reason coupled with rational thought are the tools of the Austrians. I'll have to keep my eyes open for when those tools will be used by Austrians, as the dust has been collecting for ages on them.



Capitalism "creates" nothing. Individuals who are permitted to benefit from the fruits of their labor, think about that labor and improving it to benefit themselves, productivity increases have been going on for hundreds of years rasing the standard of living for everybody. Too bad this will never happen since this appears to be a statement completely decoupled from material reality.

This hinges on the libertarian concept of "free consent" which is the part decoupled from the world. Someone "consents" to work for a low wage because the alternative is starvation...this makes a mockery of the word "consent" in any meaningful sense.

In such a "libertarian capitalist" society, one could sell one's self into slavery and it would be perfectly legitimate. It would be "consensual" after all, and with the minimal (indeed complete "seperation of economy and state") interference, what's to prevent you?

Or you selling your kids into slavery?




Free Trade becomes the rule rather than the exception as The Dutch-East Indie Company competed with British and French on the high seas to deliver goods from one place to another in pursuit of profits.

The Clipper ship, faster lighter, they carry cargo, steampower... capitalism drove it all.
Yeah, and? That doesn't justify capitalism.

You argument is rather similiar to the slavers' arguments, back when the South still had slaves in the antebellum era.

The argument was that, well, in an anachronistic analogy, if you rented a car and I owned a car, who would take better care of their car? Well, I would...you could simply throw yours away and get a new one.

The argument is parallel to the slavers' one, they owned their workers, the capitalists simply "rented" them. So the slavers "must" have taken better care of their workers than the capitalists.

And if you look, the living conditions did improve for slaves. I mean, the slave in the early 19th century lived better than the slave of the 17th century.

But this argument could be used to justify fascism even. Look, Hitler in less than 10 years drastically improved the lives of every German (not *every* German, not Jews for example). Does that justify fascism?


Murray Rothbard was Mises No 1. deciple. He did not support incorporation, simply because incorporation would not be needed in a free-market economy. Sadly, what would prevent a plutocracy? Nothing.

What would prevent incorporation? Nothing.

Remember that "seperation of economy and state"? Yeah, that means there is nothing to stop capitalists from taking over. Surprise, the government is nothing more than an executive capitalist cadre.

Ironically, Rothbard's "anarcho-capitalism" would collapse after day one: the idea that capitalists wouldn't form a plutocracy is patently absurd and negates material reality.


See, no linear graphs or any words to big for Joe Lunchbucket to understand. Problem: just because you don't say it doesn't mean it's not there.

Ever heard of "word problems"?

If you look up intermediate microeconomic books, which is the "worst" course because it introduces the system of linear differential equations for the first time.


Capitalism is an ECONOMIC system. It is not a SOCIAL system. You can't decouple an economy from a society without abstracting the concept of what a society is.

Capitalism is a social system because there are defined classes in capitalism, which fulfills the requisite for a society.

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+Aug 20 2006, 05:06 AM--> (ComradeRed @ Aug 20 2006, 05:06 AM)
Originally posted by Anti-[email protected]
Anything planned ahead is sure to be a failure, produce high unemployment, AND make people poorer in the long run. It looks good at first but ultimately fails. Look at Europe. Thus it "must" be true :rolleyes:

We all know that Europe is a "Command Economy", as is so evident that no evidence be required to demonstrate it.


Tigerman

It just so happens that Austrian or British Classical Economics is my hobby. Well, the two are not one in the same. British Classical Economics, I assume you mean Adam Smith and David Ricardo.

Austrian economics has a weird way of working, as far as the "praxeology" "works". As far as practical concerns, it's simply semantical word games as is evident in Mises "famous" proposition: Man Acts.

I'm sorry if I start sounding like Rosa (I love you Rosa! :wub: ), but what is meant by "acts"? It's an ambiguous statement, which allows the Austrians to create a trap. If you agree, there is no problem.

Disagree and the ambiguity bites you in the ass. Disagreeing is apparently acting (whatever that may be) and thus you would be wrong to disagree.

This ambiguous pseudo-analytical framework is a logical death-trap. You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. It's thus a bad method.

And tigerman, this is more of a post style annoyance other than anything else, but why in the hell are there so much empty space between the paragraphs?


There are no such linear differential equations in anything that I have read at the Mises.com or lewrockwell.com sites. Sadly neither Mises nor Rockwell thought it "good enough" to use math...probably because they were too lazy or lacking the mental faculty to understand mathematics.

If you look up Walras' original works, you will note shocking similiarities between the mathematical structure of the consumer's behavior to maximize utility and the (concept in physics) principle of least action.

Shockingly, Walras basically "copy/paste"-ed Newtonian classical mechanics into economics. There should be no surprise since the Newtonian system was used as a template in everything since its creation (even music!).

I would be highly suspect if someone mentioned Menger using math beyond simple algebra since he never really got into anything mathematically other than Marginal Utility. Ditto for Alfred Marshall.

You won't find math in the Austrian "school"...nor will you find empiricism for that matter.


Mises is Karl Marx's harshest critic. He wrote Socialim in 1922 and is widely understood to be the first economist to reason out why socialism fails. You haven't read anything by Bohm-Bawerk, have you?

At any rate, the STV fails to provide any explanation as to why there is an instantiation of a subjective entity (value)...since it would require for some instantiation to occur there to be an objective quality therein (value).

Saying "how much you prefer one good to another is subjective" is fine and dandy but explains nothing.

Further, and perhaps worse, capitalism doesn't work according to the Austrian theory...perhaps if the Austrians took their heads out of their asses and looked empirically (*gasp*) at the economy a more accurate model could be attained.

The problem is that (and "technically" this is more of a Neoclassical rule) if Marginal Cost is equal to Marginal Revenue, there is no profit but everything is magically allocated just right. The problem is that there is profit, which implies there is a shortage. This contradicts the notion that the STV allocates everything fine and dandy.

Now, as far as Mises "critique" of Marx it's too comical to be taken seriously. Mises basically construes a giant straw man derived from his misunderstanding of the LTV from the concept of labor. Then he criticizes it.


Mises explains the Pure Market Economy in straight forward English without a single graph or any other trickery. The Song Big Rock Candy Mountain did it better, it had a catchy tune. That's more than I could say for Mises.

Without any coupling to material reality, Mises maunders about some idealistic society of selfishness.


Logic and reason coupled with rational thought are the tools of the Austrians. I'll have to keep my eyes open for when those tools will be used by Austrians, as the dust has been collecting for ages on them.



Capitalism "creates" nothing. Individuals who are permitted to benefit from the fruits of their labor, think about that labor and improving it to benefit themselves, productivity increases have been going on for hundreds of years rasing the standard of living for everybody. Too bad this will never happen since this appears to be a statement completely decoupled from material reality.

This hinges on the libertarian concept of "free consent" which is the part decoupled from the world. Someone "consents" to work for a low wage because the alternative is starvation...this makes a mockery of the word "consent" in any meaningful sense.

In such a "libertarian capitalist" society, one could sell one's self into slavery and it would be perfectly legitimate. It would be "consensual" after all, and with the minimal (indeed complete "seperation of economy and state") interference, what's to prevent you?

Or you selling your kids into slavery?




Free Trade becomes the rule rather than the exception as The Dutch-East Indie Company competed with British and French on the high seas to deliver goods from one place to another in pursuit of profits.

The Clipper ship, faster lighter, they carry cargo, steampower... capitalism drove it all.
Yeah, and? That doesn't justify capitalism.

You argument is rather similiar to the slavers' arguments, back when the South still had slaves in the antebellum era.

The argument was that, well, in an anachronistic analogy, if you rented a car and I owned a car, who would take better care of their car? Well, I would...you could simply throw yours away and get a new one.

The argument is parallel to the slavers' one, they owned their workers, the capitalists simply "rented" them. So the slavers "must" have taken better care of their workers than the capitalists.

And if you look, the living conditions did improve for slaves. I mean, the slave in the early 19th century lived better than the slave of the 17th century.

But this argument could be used to justify fascism even. Look, Hitler in less than 10 years drastically improved the lives of every German (not *every* German, not Jews for example). Does that justify fascism?


Murray Rothbard was Mises No 1. deciple. He did not support incorporation, simply because incorporation would not be needed in a free-market economy. Sadly, what would prevent a plutocracy? Nothing.

What would prevent incorporation? Nothing.

Remember that "seperation of economy and state"? Yeah, that means there is nothing to stop capitalists from taking over. Surprise, the government is nothing more than an executive capitalist cadre.

Ironically, Rothbard's "anarcho-capitalism" would collapse after day one: the idea that capitalists wouldn't form a plutocracy is patently absurd and negates material reality.


See, no linear graphs or any words to big for Joe Lunchbucket to understand. Problem: just because you don't say it doesn't mean it's not there.

Ever heard of "word problems"?

If you look up intermediate microeconomic books, which is the "worst" course because it introduces the system of linear differential equations for the first time.


Capitalism is an ECONOMIC system. It is not a SOCIAL system. You can't decouple an economy from a society without abstracting the concept of what a society is.

Capitalism is a social system because there are defined classes in capitalism, which fulfills the requisite for a society. [/b]
London School as in F.A. Hayek is what I meant by British Classic school.

But Austrian it is better know as.

Man can also be in a state of rest. So praxology examines why man acts.

To move from a state of discomfort to a state of comfort, that's why answers Mises. That's the negative way of saying "to pursue happiness."

There is no trap in there. You can either agree or disagree with that conclusion.


If a man were in a satified state, there would be no need to act.

Economics is about man as an economiser. Why people pull money out of their pocket. Mathmatics has nothing to do with why some people prefer a blue cell phone and other prefer a red one. Subjective value has everything to do with satisfying both customers of blue and red cell phones. The better deal you offer, the more cell phones of all colors fly off the shelf? Why? To satify a subject value of the customer. They don't need cell phones, they want them.

Apriori is the apex of empiricism and it is all over Austrian Economics.



"instantiation" I had to read that goobley gook over three times to understand what you were trying to say. I love the plain speakers. I never hear the word so I looked it up at dictionary.com. instantiation

n : a representation of an idea in the form of an instance of it; "how many instantiations were found?"

Pretty well means "provide an instance"

Can you repeat this sentence in plainer English.

"At any rate, the STV fails to provide any explanation as to why there is an instantiation of a subjective entity (value)"...

That sentence is incomplete and makes no sense as a stand alone statement.

The Subjective Theroy of Value fails provide any explaniation as to why there is an "provide an instance" of a subjective entity (value)....

If that is the type of incomprehensible gobbly gook you plan to defend socialism with, good luck to your side.

The subject theory of value seeks to do only one thing and that is to counter the Labor Theroy of Value. I could provide many instances of STV being a true fact starting with the value of the Mona Lisa and the Honus Wagner baseball card. Those items have tremendous value in no way related to the work that went into them.

People want them because they are believed to be rare.

I hope that satisfies whatever "instantination" you were seeking that all values are imputed as subjectively determined by each individual. Some people paid $13 for Pet Rocks, most passed the bargain by. If objectivity had anything to do with it then either everybody or nobody would have bought a Pet Rock.

The second half of that sentence is incomprehensible as well.

"since it would require for some instantiation to occur there to be an objective quality therein (value)."

That is just not very good English and it fails to make any sense.

Like I said, I can comprehend Mises and Rothbard, they are plain speakers who don't use linguistist to try and baffle their opponets with bullshit.


I would like to see you try and get your core idea across once more with a rewrite in plainer English.

What is it you think the STV does not explan? Because here is what I see

The STV fails to explain why there is no instance of subjective entity (value).

I can't even make any sense what-so-ever out of what you are trying to say. It's like those words don't even belong together.

Decoupled is another interesting word.

The question begs of what people were doing before capitalists arrived.

Like Vietnam. So far as I know the peasant have been working the rice paddies for centuries. Nike arrives and sets up a factory. Long line ups of applicants appear to try and better their lot in life. Working for a wage for Nike sure sound better than working the Rice fields.

So the Vietnamese were emploed before Nike got there and the Rice paddies will still be there when no one any longer buys Nikes.

So does Nike say work or starve? I don't think so. I think they offer the rice paddy workers an opportunity for a better tommorrow. That's why the Vietnamese wanted the work.

Mises was a history professor and a Professor of philosphy before he took up Economics.

Someone has to be Marx's nemises and Mises is it. You can call 1922's Socialism "commical" if you like but one glace at the first chapter will destory just about every idea socialist hold dear.

http://www.mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx

That is a link to the best critique that Socialism has ever undergone.

Economic calculations are impossible in a cantrally planned economy is the short of it.

Selfishness is not exaclty what Mises desires. The Free and Prosperous Commonweath is the goal. That was Mises counter to Socialism.

So not only does he destroy socialism as a system of getting good and services to your doorstep, he comes up with a model of the way to govern planet Earth in peace with property rights and the rule of law as guiding principles.


The idea of being able to sell your self into slavery is nonsensical.

Self-ownership and non-aggression are the two main tenets of libertarianism. Self-ownership means exactly that, you are not for sale. Selling your kids into slavery too yeah. That's why parents have kids right?

I'm a little smarter than to believe that the law stops anyone from doing anything. The drug and prostitution laws proving the point. There is still sex slavery going on according to reports I read and all the laws against it are already in place. So what do you think the purpose of the law is? To make immoral people moral?

Neither Capitalism nor socialism will determine wheher you will be the kind of person to sell your child, your rear end, or your soul to another. That is a question of ethics and I think we can both agree prostitution will still go on regardless of the system of governace.

That Capitalism brings prosperity in it's train has no corelation to slavery. Capitalism made slavery obsolete all over the world. Slavery was doomed in America long before the Civil War started. The moral compass of the people was changing at that time.

Gee, what if the government didn't have any control over the economy? How could there be an incorporation without a charter from the government?

So don't give the government any authority to charter corporations and that would be that.

People would still be free to pool their capital together in whatever venture they saw fit, they would just have to limit the liabilities within the partnership agreement and then it would be up to the bank to lend money or the public to buy shares knowing the cirumstance.


What if all the capitalists in the world would have formed a plutocracy with IBM?


Where would they be now? So long as there are no government obsiticles placed in the path of an entrpeneur there will be a way to best the already established in a world that is always in a state of flux. Whatever plutocracy that would try to develope would fall apart as soon as the first bad decision was made and someone lost a dollar.

OPEC members can barely keep from slicing each others throat. What make you think they would ever agree with the Russian and Venezulian or Canadian Oil producers in some kind of plutocracy?

[BobKKKindle$]

Capitalism is an ECONOMIC system. It is not a SOCIAL system.

The Class relations of production under which a society operates to produce and distrinute commodities results in an accompanying political and social superstructure. To try and seperate Economic structures from Social systems is to fail to understand the way in which Society functions. The Reason why many Capitalist Countries have a political system based on 'Pluralism' is because they utilise means of repression and social control that are compatible with a system of 'political freedom'. The Achievement of Political Liberties such as Speech, and Association, as part of bourgeois revolutions followed by the transition to the Capitalist mode of production means that the achievement of these freedoms cancelled the Premises for their conquest. See 'Commodity Fetishism' etc.


Capitalism "creates" nothing. Individuals who are permitted to benefit from the fruits of their labor, think about that labor and improving it to benefit themselves,

It appears that you and I do in fact what a similar thing; for workers to fully realise the benefits of their labour. However, this is not possible under the Capitalist relations of production, due to the private ownership of the means of production and the existance of a reserve army of labour. This allows the Capitalist to retain control of commodities created by workers (which he then sells at a profit) and purchase the worker's labour power at a low price.


Economics is about man as an economiser. Why people pull money out of their pocket.

Um, No, Economics is the study of the way in which Societies and Individuals deal with the fundamentla economic problem of unlimited wants and scarce resources in terms of the distribution and production of Commodities. Socialism provided a fairer way of doing this than Capitalism through the social ownership of the means of production, which ensures that a Capitalist is unable to recieve wealth he did not earn, and democratic planning, which ensures that economic need (Use Value) is placed about profit (Exchange Value)


That Capitalism brings prosperity in it's train has no corelation to slavery. Capitalism made slavery obsolete all over the world.

Prior to Capitalism, people languished under Poltical Slavery. The exercise of religous dogma and the power of Barons under Feudalism, the domination of Africa and the East by IMperialism, under these systems, which could not exist under democratic systems, people were subjagated and forced to work by political means - the threat of violence, the weight of institutions. Capitalism utilises a less obvious form of Slavery in the form of economic servitude under Wage Labour. The fact that workers do not own the means of production means that they are often forced to accept the price that is offerred to them by the Capitalist class - Less than the value of the products of their labour.

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:52 AM

Capitalism is an ECONOMIC system. It is not a SOCIAL system.

The Class relations of production under which a society operates to produce and distrinute commodities results in an accompanying political and social superstructure. To try and seperate Economic structures from Social systems is to fail to understand the way in which Society functions. The Reason why many Capitalist Countries have a political system based on 'Pluralism' is because they utilise means of repression and social control that are compatible with a system of 'political freedom'. The Achievement of Political Liberties such as Speech, and Association, as part of bourgeois revolutions followed by the transition to the Capitalist mode of production means that the achievement of these freedoms cancelled the Premises for their conquest. See 'Commodity Fetishism' etc.


Capitalism "creates" nothing. Individuals who are permitted to benefit from the fruits of their labor, think about that labor and improving it to benefit themselves,

It appears that you and I do in fact what a similar thing; for workers to fully realise the benefits of their labour. However, this is not possible under the Capitalist relations of production, due to the private ownership of the means of production and the existance of a reserve army of labour. This allows the Capitalist to retain control of commodities created by workers (which he then sells at a profit) and purchase the worker's labour power at a low price.


Economics is about man as an economiser. Why people pull money out of their pocket.

Um, No, Economics is the study of the way in which Societies and Individuals deal with the fundamentla economic problem of unlimited wants and scarce resources in terms of the distribution and production of Commodities. Socialism provided a fairer way of doing this than Capitalism through the social ownership of the means of production, which ensures that a Capitalist is unable to recieve wealth he did not earn, and democratic planning, which ensures that economic need (Use Value) is placed about profit (Exchange Value)


That Capitalism brings prosperity in it's train has no corelation to slavery. Capitalism made slavery obsolete all over the world.

Prior to Capitalism, people languished under Poltical Slavery. The exercise of religous dogma and the power of Barons under Feudalism, the domination of Africa and the East by IMperialism, under these systems, which could not exist under democratic systems, people were subjagated and forced to work by political means - the threat of violence, the weight of institutions. Capitalism utilises a less obvious form of Slavery in the form of economic servitude under Wage Labour. The fact that workers do not own the means of production means that they are often forced to accept the price that is offerred to them by the Capitalist class - Less than the value of the products of their labour.
Class struggle is made obsolete in capitalism for those who are prepared to sacrifice instant gratification for long term wealth.

Twenty year olds are all poor and have no assets and no wealth.

Thirty year olds have mortage and pension assets as well as acumulated private properties like automobiles, snow machines, motor bikes, fishing equipment boats, tools and all the household material posession.


Forty years olds own thier cheques because their mortage is paid and their long term investments are starting to pay.


Fifty year old are quite secure with many retiring at 55 with golden handshakes to boot.


That is the "class struggle" of capitalism.


Any citizen can improve their class in life under capitalism if that is what is truely important to them. If anything government barriers like licensure and the like stand more in the way of upward mobility than anything Bill Gates or the Bunkers could do to hold you back.



This "reserve Army of labor" what is that?

And if there were no priovate capital, where would the government get the money to start a factory?

There are all kinds of countries all over the world who have a socialist bent but no capital with which to employ the labor force.

Socialism is great at taking over all ready established wealth. But sooner or later a decision is going to be needed. Soon as the wrong decisions start to compound, there will be no profits and no way to pay employees. The world is not static, it is in a constat state of flux.

Bill Gates does not rest on his laurels. Vista will soon be introduced and the Beta program is already established. If there were no profits at Microsoft, and if the income was divided between the workers, there would be no money for research and development. There would be just as many ideas being researched as there are ideas. Bill Gates keeps every nickle above operating expences because the money belongs to him. He earned it and he decides what direction Microsoft will take. If he makes a mistake, Microsoft will be dust.

Someone else will best his XP operating system if Bill merely rests on his laurels.

The world is always in a state of flux. The 64 bit bus speed operating systems are going to blow anything we know of as speed in computing away.


That is the power of capitalism. Everybody benefits.


Socialism is "fairer." Who decides that?


What could be more fair than Party A and Party B being in absolute agreement on any trade including labor issue?

Bill Gates has no guns only money. He can't make me do anything.

He can only entice me with his money. For that, I must percieve that I will benefit more from my future with Bill than if I am to use my own resources. It is my choice. I can always continue to do what ever it was I was doing before the capitalist happend along.


Since Microsoft would not exist without Bill Gates, where is the money he did not earn? We know if Steve Jobs were the boss the company would have went broke like all of Steve's other companies. If the President of Atari were in charge of Microsoft, well Microsoft would have went the way of Atari. Capish?

All those other companies had everything except Bill Gates reputation.

Look at him. He Looks like a computer geek. He looks trustworthy like he wouldn't hurt a fly and you would welcome him into your home to look at your machine.

It is the persona that forwarded Microsoft along. Without Bill Gates, Microsoft does not exist and we might still be using Amiga's and Atari's.

So, not just any comarde can be put in charge and you have the same results.

Where are K-Mart and Kresge's? Sam Walton put them out of business. K-Mart was big time. Shops in every major city. Profits galore for 40 years and that country bumpkin Sama Walton came along and put them out of business.

A lot of it had to do with the image of Sam Walton. He was like one of us only richer. Meanwhile K-mart had no image to sell, who knows who the president was?

Now that Sam Walton is gone, things have changed. The buy American policy changed and there is no longer a figurehead for image purposes. Wal-mart will sooner or later go the way of K-mart for that very reason. People like to know who they're doing business with.

Good to see that you understand that the Monarchy and other systems of feudilism are not comparable to either the socialist or capitalist system.

[red team]

Twenty year olds are all poor and have no assets and no wealth.

Thirty year olds have mortage and pension assets as well as acumulated private properties like automobiles, snow machines, motor bikes, fishing equipment boats, tools and all the household material posession.


Forty years olds own thier cheques because their mortage is paid and their long term investments are starting to pay.


Fifty year old are quite secure with many retiring at 55 with golden handshakes to boot.


Now you're simply making assumptions that wealth is correlated to age. It may be related to something else like when that segment of the population was working, which may have been a more prosperous and stable time for Capitalism.

You're also making the assumption that young people are paid at the same rate as older workers that are already established in their careers. Again, nothing to prove these assumptions are true in every case or even true as a current societal trend.

I would assert that young people are now paid less than older workers as a way of pressuring every worker to produce more for less by leveraging those who are desperate for work to take any wage offered them.


Any citizen can improve their class in life under capitalism if that is what is truely important to them. If anything government barriers like licensure and the like stand more in the way of upward mobility than anything Bill Gates or the Bunkers could do to hold you back.

Another unproven and unprovable statement with nothing to even support the validity of the conclusion.

If the government motive for licensure is simply the same motive for business to accumulate profit then licensure would simply be another drain on business like a protection racket runned by gangsters then what we have is a corrupt government that is not fullfilling their duties of enforcing the licensure in the first place. Licensure was never about gangsterism, but of upholding standards so that consumers don't have to guess at the safety of products, but know for sure that they have been checked by reliable sources. Why would I simply assume that business would self-inspect themselves for the welfare of the consumer? That's just simply another unprovable assumption. Should we simply wait for a few deaths to happen so that consumers would avoid the company in question in the future? No, I'm selfish for my own personal safety. I don't want to be a guinea pig for new products of questionable safety. If I'm dead or maimed then it doesn't really matter to me if the company's products is avoided by others is it?


This "reserve Army of labor" what is that?

And if there were no priovate capital, where would the government get the money to start a factory?

There are all kinds of countries all over the world who have a socialist bent but no capital with which to employ the labor force.

Same way all "Socialist" government get the money to start a factory. They get people to pretend that pieces of paper (money) is valuable in some way by playing on human psychology and then print the money after the work of building something (like a factory) is done.

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 20 2006, 07:44 PM

Twenty year olds are all poor and have no assets and no wealth.

Thirty year olds have mortage and pension assets as well as acumulated private properties like automobiles, snow machines, motor bikes, fishing equipment boats, tools and all the household material posession.


Forty years olds own thier cheques because their mortage is paid and their long term investments are starting to pay.


Fifty year old are quite secure with many retiring at 55 with golden handshakes to boot.


Now you're simply making assumptions that wealth is correlated to age. It may be related to something else like when that segment of the population was working, which may have been a more prosperous and stable time for Capitalism.

You're also making the assumption that young people are paid at the same rate as older workers that are already established in their careers. Again, nothing to prove these assumptions are true in every case or even true as a current societal trend.

I would assert that young people are now paid less than older workers as a way of pressuring every worker to produce more for less by leveraging those who are desperate for work to take any wage offered them.


Any citizen can improve their class in life under capitalism if that is what is truely important to them. If anything government barriers like licensure and the like stand more in the way of upward mobility than anything Bill Gates or the Bunkers could do to hold you back.

Another unproven and unprovable statement with nothing to even support the validity of the conclusion.

If the government motive for licensure is simply the same motive for business to accumulate profit then licensure would simply be another drain on business like a protection racket runned by gangsters then what we have is a corrupt government that is not fullfilling their duties of enforcing the licensure in the first place. Licensure was never about gangsterism, but of upholding standards so that consumers don't have to guess at the safety of products, but know for sure that they have been checked by reliable sources. Why would I simply assume that business would self-inspect themselves for the welfare of the consumer? That's just simply another unprovable assumption. Should we simply wait for a few deaths to happen so that consumers would avoid the company in question in the future? No, I'm selfish for my own personal safety. I don't want to be a guinea pig for new products of questionable safety. If I'm dead or maimed then it doesn't really matter to me if the company's products is avoided by others is it?


This "reserve Army of labor" what is that?

And if there were no priovate capital, where would the government get the money to start a factory?

There are all kinds of countries all over the world who have a socialist bent but no capital with which to employ the labor force.

Same way all "Socialist" government get the money to start a factory. They get people to pretend that pieces of paper (money) is valuable in some way by playing on human psychology and then print the money after the work of building something (like a factory) is done.
There are all kinds of inflationary forces to consider about pay rates.


Young Americans now have to compete with Young Indonians, Young Chinese and others for their feul on a world wide market. Demand is up and supply is barely able to keep up. So the American economy is no longer in an advantageous position. The American youth will have to learn to live in a world where there is a lot more competition so they may not achieve the same overwhelming advantge their ancestors had by being first on the block with all the new production facilites.

The American Unions have over-priced their labor and they drove investors to third world countries where the rules and regulations were not so tryanical.

(Imagine Coke-a-Cola moving to Bejing to get away from the American tax monster.)

It took time but now the Asian Tiger has closed the gap of have and have not status with the Western world. The Asians have adopted Capitalism and have noted the prosperity that comes in it's train.

Caveat Emptor served humanity well for thosands of years.

Do you really trust the American government on anything?


Governments are not trustable.

People are. Find a reputable grocer and he won't sell you anything you don't want to buy.


The question begs, why would anybody buy snake oil?

Why not buy Bayer Asprin? I trust Bayer Asprin. Even my Mom like them for me when I was a kid.


No one says you gotta eat Aunt Edna's chicken soup. And you don't need the government to inspect it for you either. One bad bowl and Aunt Edna is out of business, same as what happens when any product harms the public: toast.

Reputation is all a business person has to win over your patronization with.

In a capitalist system, the consumer is King. The consumer decides who gets rich and who will go bankrupt. Make a bad product and the consumers will not purchase your brand and will purchase some other brand that will gain their loyality.

Viagra has caused lots of deaths yet is still available.

Every year a number of people die from asprin reactions.

There is no such thing as a totally safe product for everybody.

I don't trust the government anyway. I know the agents are human and therefore faliable. They are bribeable and they likely won't disclose anything to me that would portray them in a bad light, so we never know if a mistake was made when governments peotect us, that is unless someone blows the whislte. And then strange things happen to whistle blowers.

Lots of evil stuff goes on in those government protection rackets.

[ComradeRed]

London School as in F.A. Hayek is what I meant by British Classic school. That's not British Classical economics, that's neoclassical economics. Hell, Hayek is widely recognized as part of the Austrian school of economics.



Man can also be in a state of rest. So praxology examines why man acts. Irrelevant, my point is that such a methodology is nothing more than a priori word games that can contribute nothing of any significance.



To move from a state of discomfort to a state of comfort, that's why answers Mises. That's the negative way of saying "to pursue happiness."

There is no trap in there. You can either agree or disagree with that conclusion. You obviously don't understand my point, my point is that (as A.J. Ayers pointed out) you can't get anything meaningful from a priori word games...even if you call it something like "praxeology".



Economics is about man as an economiser. Why people pull money out of their pocket. Mathmatics has nothing to do with why some people prefer a blue cell phone and other prefer a red one. Subjective value has everything to do with satisfying both customers of blue and red cell phones. The better deal you offer, the more cell phones of all colors fly off the shelf? Why? To satify a subject value of the customer. They don't need cell phones, they want them. You switch the independent and the dependent variables around.

It doesn't matter what the consumer does, "acts", or thinks. It matters what the firms do.

That's one of the critical problems of Neoclassical economics, as well as "Austrian" "economics" (as though there were any significant difference besides the latter being more hostile to math than the former).


Apriori is the apex of empiricism and it is all over Austrian Economics. Who taught you that? Even the most basic courses on ontology would tell you otherwise.

The a priori is completely incompatible to empiricism. The "Aristotlean" methodology of the Austrian school is still compatible with Platonism; as your statement demonstrates.

The Austrians are a Platonic school of economics, what a delicious irony.



"instantiation" I had to read that goobley gook over three times to understand what you were trying to say. I love the plain speakers. I never hear the word so I looked it up at dictionary.com. instantiation Yes, I know that you don't understand what you are saying either.

Perhaps when you learn basic philosophy, math, and english skills you could come back.



That sentence is incomplete and makes no sense as a stand alone statement. No shit, sherlock! You butchered it into an incomplete phrase!



The Subjective Theroy of Value fails provide any explaniation as to why there is an "provide an instance" of a subjective entity (value).... Yes, brilliant reasoning skills, Shakespeare, you must've tested 1600 on the SATs :rolleyes:


If that is the type of incomprehensible gobbly gook you plan to defend socialism with, good luck to your side.
Listen for a second: with subjective things, you can't quantify it. If value is subjective, how come there are prices? :huh: A price is a quantified instance of value at a point in time (since prices change).

I know this may come to a shock to your idealistic psychobabble, but that's how capitalism works. Maybe if you'd get out more often and empirically observe the economy, you'd learn a little.


The subject theory of value seeks to do only one thing and that is to counter the Labor Theroy of Value. I could provide many instances of STV being a true fact starting with the value of the Mona Lisa and the Honus Wagner baseball card. Those items have tremendous value in no way related to the work that went into them.
Your argument is moot, since you're quantifying a subjective thing.

You're contradicting yourself, tigerman.


People want them because they are believed to be rare.
So you know what everyone thinks? Do people buy bread or medicine on this sole belief?


I hope that satisfies whatever "instantination" you were seeking that all values are imputed as subjectively determined by each individual. Some people paid $13 for Pet Rocks, most passed the bargain by. If objectivity had anything to do with it then either everybody or nobody would have bought a Pet Rock.
Wow, you're stupider than I took you for.

If something is subjective, it can't be described quantifiably.

How do you explain the "mystery" of price? It's a quantity that's also somehow subjective, this contradicts your hypothesis.


The second half of that sentence is incomprehensible as well.
Not sure if you noticed, but your entire post was incomprehensible.


"since it would require for some instantiation to occur there to be an objective quality therein (value)."

That is just not very good English and it fails to make any sense. Maybe if I treat your post the same way, you'd be a Gothe. Let's try!

"Like I said, I can..." This makes no sense, it's just a fragment, it's nonsensical.

"comprehend Mises and Rothbard, they are plain speakers who don't use linguistist to try and baffle their opponets with bullshit." This just isn't english and makes no sense.

Wow, what a devastating blow to your argument! :rolleyes:

Mises and Rothbard are philistines at best, they're arguments are circular and strawmen.


I would like to see you try and get your core idea across once more with a rewrite in plainer English.
I would like to see a capitalist with the IQ higher than a rock, but we all can't get our wishes.

Hey! I got's an idea! Maybe, just maybe, if you knew what you were talking about, we could have a conversation!

That's asking too much for an Austrian "economist".


What is it you think the STV does not explan? Because here is what I see

The STV fails to explain why there is no instance of subjective entity (value).

I can't even make any sense what-so-ever out of what you are trying to say. It's like those words don't even belong together. You want me to explain it mathematically?



∃! v :⇔ℝ
(ℝ ≠ Φ) ⇔ (v∈ℝ)


ANd yet somehow I think you'll just whine about how I used math (the dreaded thing!).


The question begs of what people were doing before capitalists arrived.

Like Vietnam. So far as I know the peasant have been working the rice paddies for centuries. Nike arrives and sets up a factory. Long line ups of applicants appear to try and better their lot in life. Working for a wage for Nike sure sound better than working the Rice fields.

So the Vietnamese were emploed before Nike got there and the Rice paddies will still be there when no one any longer buys Nikes.

So does Nike say work or starve? I don't think so. I think they offer the rice paddy workers an opportunity for a better tommorrow. That's why the Vietnamese wanted the work. Irrelevant; my point is that your "logic" can be applied to slavery, fascism and stalinism to justify what happened.

You straw manned my point into something else completely. You're still arguing that it improves the standards of living. Yeah, no argument from me here.

But so did fascism, slavery, and Stalinism. Does it justify what happened? No, not at all.

Improvements in the standards of living cannot justify what occurs in societies.


Mises was a history professor and a Professor of philosphy before he took up Economics.

Someone has to be Marx's nemises and Mises is it. You can call 1922's Socialism "commical" if you like but one glace at the first chapter will destory just about every idea socialist hold dear.

http://www.mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx

That is a link to the best critique that Socialism has ever undergone. You really are full of it, aren't you?

Mises is a platonic fool who creates word games as an excuse for methodology. You have not refuted this, so it is safe to assume that you agree.

Undoubtedly you will come back with something about his Aristotlean stance, yaddah yaddah yaddah. The thing you forget is that Aristotleanism and Platonism are not mutually exclusive, you can be an Aristotlean Platonist. This may be a little beyond your scope, but I hope you can figure out that induction and deduction are not mutually exclusive but rather interdependent. Aristotleanism is merely inductive Platonism.


Economic calculations are impossible in a cantrally planned economy is the short of it. If you don't know math, it appears to be so. Point-in-case: Mises.

If you can figure out that you have your variables switched around, it's actually not only feasible but applicable. Look up Sraffa's work.


Selfishness is not exaclty what Mises desires. The Free and Prosperous Commonweath is the goal. That was Mises counter to Socialism.

So not only does he destroy socialism as a system of getting good and services to your doorstep, he comes up with a model of the way to govern planet Earth in peace with property rights and the rule of law as guiding principles.Mises failed to destroy socialism with his form of Platonism.


The idea of being able to sell your self into slavery is nonsensical. Good rebuttle, obviously a seperation of "economy and state" will never result in slavery.

You really do need to get out more.


Self-ownership and non-aggression are the two main tenets of libertarianism. Self-ownership means exactly that, you are not for sale. Selling your kids into slavery too yeah. That's why parents have kids right? Then there is a contradiction between the seperation of state and economy and this right-wing libertarianism of yours.


That Capitalism brings prosperity in it's train has no corelation to slavery. Capitalism made slavery obsolete all over the world. Slavery was doomed in America long before the Civil War started. The moral compass of the people was changing at that time. You miss my point, that doesn't justify capitalism.

If it did, then Nazism, Stalinism, and slavery would be equally as just as capitalism. They aren't absolved from what they did.


Gee, what if the government didn't have any control over the economy? How could there be an incorporation without a charter from the government?

So don't give the government any authority to charter corporations and that would be that. Wow, what a scholar; obviously you have no clue what "laissez-faire" is :rolleyes:


People would still be free to pool their capital together in whatever venture they saw fit, they would just have to limit the liabilities within the partnership agreement and then it would be up to the bank to lend money or the public to buy shares knowing the cirumstance. What would prevent capitalists from simply blowing up their competition? Point-in-case: Russia.

It's the closest thing to a laissez-faire economy that you'll get, and there is organized crime running the show. That's the reward for laissez-faire, that's the invisible hand Smith spoke so much about :lol:


What if all the capitalists in the world would have formed a plutocracy with IBM?

Where would they be now? So long as there are no government obsiticles placed in the path of an entrpeneur there will be a way to best the already established in a world that is always in a state of flux. Whatever plutocracy that would try to develope would fall apart as soon as the first bad decision was made and someone lost a dollar.

OPEC members can barely keep from slicing each others throat. What make you think they would ever agree with the Russian and Venezulian or Canadian Oil producers in some kind of plutocracy? Oh, I must have dozed off, we live in a libertarian society now? :huh:

Your arguments have become absurd with the propositions that a plutocracy can form in this "corporatist" society (as though that's not a plutocracy :rolleyes:).

[JKP]

Governments are not trustable.

People are.


I know the agents are human and therefore faliable. They are bribeable...

Nothing like consistency to bolster your argument, eh?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 20 2006, 02:57 AM
Anything planned ahead is sure to be a failure, produce high unemployment, AND make people poorer in the long run. It looks good at first but ultimately fails. Look at Europe.
Look at eastern europe before so-called 'communism' look at Russia. Even Cuba. Russia and eastern europe were czarist-peasant shitholes. No one had anything. 'communism' industrialized the countries at an extremely fast paced. Here's a link about how life has changed in cuba since the revolution.

What socialism has done for cuba (http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/revol.htm)

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 02:42 AM



Governments are not trustable.

People are.


I know the agents are human and therefore faliable. They are bribeable...

Nothing like consistency to bolster your argument, eh?
That's right.

Sam Walton, Bill Gates.


Bill Clinton, George w. Bush.



Who do you trust?

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:41 PM


London School as in F.A. Hayek is what I meant by British Classic school. That's not British Classical economics, that's neoclassical economics. Hell, Hayek is widely recognized as part of the Austrian school of economics.



Man can also be in a state of rest. So praxology examines why man acts. Irrelevant, my point is that such a methodology is nothing more than a priori word games that can contribute nothing of any significance.



To move from a state of discomfort to a state of comfort, that's why answers Mises. That's the negative way of saying "to pursue happiness."

There is no trap in there. You can either agree or disagree with that conclusion. You obviously don't understand my point, my point is that (as A.J. Ayers pointed out) you can't get anything meaningful from a priori word games...even if you call it something like "praxeology".



Economics is about man as an economiser. Why people pull money out of their pocket. Mathmatics has nothing to do with why some people prefer a blue cell phone and other prefer a red one. Subjective value has everything to do with satisfying both customers of blue and red cell phones. The better deal you offer, the more cell phones of all colors fly off the shelf? Why? To satify a subject value of the customer. They don't need cell phones, they want them. You switch the independent and the dependent variables around.

It doesn't matter what the consumer does, "acts", or thinks. It matters what the firms do.

That's one of the critical problems of Neoclassical economics, as well as "Austrian" "economics" (as though there were any significant difference besides the latter being more hostile to math than the former).


Apriori is the apex of empiricism and it is all over Austrian Economics. Who taught you that? Even the most basic courses on ontology would tell you otherwise.

The a priori is completely incompatible to empiricism. The "Aristotlean" methodology of the Austrian school is still compatible with Platonism; as your statement demonstrates.

The Austrians are a Platonic school of economics, what a delicious irony.



"instantiation" I had to read that goobley gook over three times to understand what you were trying to say. I love the plain speakers. I never hear the word so I looked it up at dictionary.com. instantiation Yes, I know that you don't understand what you are saying either.

Perhaps when you learn basic philosophy, math, and english skills you could come back.



That sentence is incomplete and makes no sense as a stand alone statement. No shit, sherlock! You butchered it into an incomplete phrase!



The Subjective Theroy of Value fails provide any explaniation as to why there is an "provide an instance" of a subjective entity (value).... Yes, brilliant reasoning skills, Shakespeare, you must've tested 1600 on the SATs :rolleyes:


If that is the type of incomprehensible gobbly gook you plan to defend socialism with, good luck to your side.
Listen for a second: with subjective things, you can't quantify it. If value is subjective, how come there are prices? :huh: A price is a quantified instance of value at a point in time (since prices change).

I know this may come to a shock to your idealistic psychobabble, but that's how capitalism works. Maybe if you'd get out more often and empirically observe the economy, you'd learn a little.


The subject theory of value seeks to do only one thing and that is to counter the Labor Theroy of Value. I could provide many instances of STV being a true fact starting with the value of the Mona Lisa and the Honus Wagner baseball card. Those items have tremendous value in no way related to the work that went into them.
Your argument is moot, since you're quantifying a subjective thing.

You're contradicting yourself, tigerman.


People want them because they are believed to be rare.
So you know what everyone thinks? Do people buy bread or medicine on this sole belief?


I hope that satisfies whatever "instantination" you were seeking that all values are imputed as subjectively determined by each individual. Some people paid $13 for Pet Rocks, most passed the bargain by. If objectivity had anything to do with it then either everybody or nobody would have bought a Pet Rock.
Wow, you're stupider than I took you for.

If something is subjective, it can't be described quantifiably.

How do you explain the "mystery" of price? It's a quantity that's also somehow subjective, this contradicts your hypothesis.


The second half of that sentence is incomprehensible as well.
Not sure if you noticed, but your entire post was incomprehensible.


"since it would require for some instantiation to occur there to be an objective quality therein (value)."

That is just not very good English and it fails to make any sense. Maybe if I treat your post the same way, you'd be a Gothe. Let's try!

"Like I said, I can..." This makes no sense, it's just a fragment, it's nonsensical.

"comprehend Mises and Rothbard, they are plain speakers who don't use linguistist to try and baffle their opponets with bullshit." This just isn't english and makes no sense.

Wow, what a devastating blow to your argument! :rolleyes:

Mises and Rothbard are philistines at best, they're arguments are circular and strawmen.


I would like to see you try and get your core idea across once more with a rewrite in plainer English.
I would like to see a capitalist with the IQ higher than a rock, but we all can't get our wishes.

Hey! I got's an idea! Maybe, just maybe, if you knew what you were talking about, we could have a conversation!

That's asking too much for an Austrian "economist".


What is it you think the STV does not explan? Because here is what I see

The STV fails to explain why there is no instance of subjective entity (value).

I can't even make any sense what-so-ever out of what you are trying to say. It's like those words don't even belong together. You want me to explain it mathematically?



∃! v :⇔ℝ
(ℝ ≠ Φ) ⇔ (v∈ℝ)


ANd yet somehow I think you'll just whine about how I used math (the dreaded thing!).


The question begs of what people were doing before capitalists arrived.

Like Vietnam. So far as I know the peasant have been working the rice paddies for centuries. Nike arrives and sets up a factory. Long line ups of applicants appear to try and better their lot in life. Working for a wage for Nike sure sound better than working the Rice fields.

So the Vietnamese were emploed before Nike got there and the Rice paddies will still be there when no one any longer buys Nikes.

So does Nike say work or starve? I don't think so. I think they offer the rice paddy workers an opportunity for a better tommorrow. That's why the Vietnamese wanted the work. Irrelevant; my point is that your "logic" can be applied to slavery, fascism and stalinism to justify what happened.

You straw manned my point into something else completely. You're still arguing that it improves the standards of living. Yeah, no argument from me here.

But so did fascism, slavery, and Stalinism. Does it justify what happened? No, not at all.

Improvements in the standards of living cannot justify what occurs in societies.


Mises was a history professor and a Professor of philosphy before he took up Economics.

Someone has to be Marx's nemises and Mises is it. You can call 1922's Socialism "commical" if you like but one glace at the first chapter will destory just about every idea socialist hold dear.

http://www.mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx

That is a link to the best critique that Socialism has ever undergone. You really are full of it, aren't you?

Mises is a platonic fool who creates word games as an excuse for methodology. You have not refuted this, so it is safe to assume that you agree.

Undoubtedly you will come back with something about his Aristotlean stance, yaddah yaddah yaddah. The thing you forget is that Aristotleanism and Platonism are not mutually exclusive, you can be an Aristotlean Platonist. This may be a little beyond your scope, but I hope you can figure out that induction and deduction are not mutually exclusive but rather interdependent. Aristotleanism is merely inductive Platonism.


Economic calculations are impossible in a cantrally planned economy is the short of it. If you don't know math, it appears to be so. Point-in-case: Mises.

If you can figure out that you have your variables switched around, it's actually not only feasible but applicable. Look up Sraffa's work.


Selfishness is not exaclty what Mises desires. The Free and Prosperous Commonweath is the goal. That was Mises counter to Socialism.

So not only does he destroy socialism as a system of getting good and services to your doorstep, he comes up with a model of the way to govern planet Earth in peace with property rights and the rule of law as guiding principles.Mises failed to destroy socialism with his form of Platonism.


The idea of being able to sell your self into slavery is nonsensical. Good rebuttle, obviously a seperation of "economy and state" will never result in slavery.

You really do need to get out more.


Self-ownership and non-aggression are the two main tenets of libertarianism. Self-ownership means exactly that, you are not for sale. Selling your kids into slavery too yeah. That's why parents have kids right? Then there is a contradiction between the seperation of state and economy and this right-wing libertarianism of yours.


That Capitalism brings prosperity in it's train has no corelation to slavery. Capitalism made slavery obsolete all over the world. Slavery was doomed in America long before the Civil War started. The moral compass of the people was changing at that time. You miss my point, that doesn't justify capitalism.

If it did, then Nazism, Stalinism, and slavery would be equally as just as capitalism. They aren't absolved from what they did.


Gee, what if the government didn't have any control over the economy? How could there be an incorporation without a charter from the government?

So don't give the government any authority to charter corporations and that would be that. Wow, what a scholar; obviously you have no clue what "laissez-faire" is :rolleyes:


People would still be free to pool their capital together in whatever venture they saw fit, they would just have to limit the liabilities within the partnership agreement and then it would be up to the bank to lend money or the public to buy shares knowing the cirumstance. What would prevent capitalists from simply blowing up their competition? Point-in-case: Russia.

It's the closest thing to a laissez-faire economy that you'll get, and there is organized crime running the show. That's the reward for laissez-faire, that's the invisible hand Smith spoke so much about :lol:


What if all the capitalists in the world would have formed a plutocracy with IBM?

Where would they be now? So long as there are no government obsiticles placed in the path of an entrpeneur there will be a way to best the already established in a world that is always in a state of flux. Whatever plutocracy that would try to develope would fall apart as soon as the first bad decision was made and someone lost a dollar.

OPEC members can barely keep from slicing each others throat. What make you think they would ever agree with the Russian and Venezulian or Canadian Oil producers in some kind of plutocracy? Oh, I must have dozed off, we live in a libertarian society now? :huh:

Your arguments have become absurd with the propositions that a plutocracy can form in this "corporatist" society (as though that's not a plutocracy :rolleyes:).
Aprioria word games as you call them give us insight into human action.

Orwell tells us that to control language is to control humanity.

You can dimiss Mises lightly if you like, but Socialism failed in the Soviet Union proving Mises was right. It was economic colapse and not military defeat.
The proof is in the pudding. Mises was right.

It doesn't matter what consumers do? Wrong. There are entire Museams filled with products that are no longer made because consumers no longer purchase them. There are a thousand products introduced by firms every year. Very few grab the imagination of the consumers.

I'm sure Atari and Amiga wish it was as easy as putting a computer on the store shelf and that's that right? Riches galore. Well, wrong, they went broke.



for a second: with subjective things, you can't quantify it. If value is subjective, how come there are prices? A price is a quantified instance of value at a point in time (since prices change).

I can quantify all my possession subjectively and put a price on it so your statement is false. The world is in a state of flux and prices as well as values change moment by moment.

Give me a for instance of a subjective thing that I cannot quantify. The value of all cars are on the road and in the car showroom are subjective. I might pay more for a Rolls-Royce than I would for a Cadillac or visa versa depending on a lot of subjective values. Age milage, genral overall condition. Those are the values I impute to just about everthing I purchase. If the vebdor asks too much or more than I believe the item is worth then I will not purchase it. That is what I call subjective value.

So a price is a quantified instance of value at a point in time to the owner. The buyer has his own set of values at any given point in time. That's why there must be unequal values to both the buyer and the seller. Both must believe they are benefitting in the deal or there will be no sale.

And far from me contradicting myself, it is you who resorts to meaningless pronouncements. The example of Honus Wager card being of value convolutes to you asking if the same assesments are made when buying bread or medicine.

One has nothing to do with the other and the arguement form is distraction rather than explaination.


Whereever did you get the idea that subjective vales were not quantifiable?

Your making the pronouncement certainly does not make the statement true.


Everything has a price. There is no mystry to any of that.


Mises knew math and knew math had nothing to do with human actions. You call Mises a fool yet blindly follow an ideology proven to deliver poverty when ever the system was tried. Really who is the fool?


Looks like the rest of your arguement degenerates down to name calling instead of idea explainations, too bad.

[ComradeRed]

Aprioria word games as you call them give us insight into human action.

Orwell tells us that to control language is to control humanity. Like the rest of the a priori nonsense, word games give us nothing.

The praxeological method is as good as the dialectical one (just to let you know, I am avidly against dialectics -- don't mindlessly listen to Mises criticism of "socialism" and say "Well, Mises says all Marxists use dialectics, so it must be so.").

It contributes nothing of any value other than tautologies, and tautologies cannot do anything. There is no logical conclusion from "A=A" that will give anything of value while being logically derived from it.

It's one or the other. It either follows logically or it is a non-sequitur. From a meaningless tautology, it has to be a non-sequitur without it being tautology.

The only thing to logically follow would have to be a tautology. Sorry, that's logic.



You can dimiss Mises lightly if you like, but Socialism failed in the Soviet Union proving Mises was right. It was economic colapse and not military defeat.
The proof is in the pudding. Mises was right. The reason why it collapsed was nothing like Mises predicted. Sorry, but "the proof is in the pudding" :rolleyes:

Mises was wrong. It didn't collapse because



It doesn't matter what consumers do? Wrong. There are entire Museams filled with products that are no longer made because consumers no longer purchase them. There are a thousand products introduced by firms every year. Very few grab the imagination of the consumers.

I'm sure Atari and Amiga wish it was as easy as putting a computer on the store shelf and that's that right? Riches galore. Well, wrong, they went broke. Well, if you would empirically look at what happened (*gasp!*), you would notice that it was problems with Atari and Amiga.

Actually, if you look it up, Atari is doing decently (2005 Revenue: $359.165 million).

Amiga went out of business due to competition. The market works similiarly to evolution (survival of the fittest) with an important exception: firms don't reproduce.

This leads to the existence of corporations and monolithic firms.

So sayeth empiricism, the dreaded un-a-prioristic thing!


I can quantify all my possession subjectively and put a price on it so your statement is false. The world is in a state of flux and prices as well as values change moment by moment. You obviously do not comprehend basic mathematics, I'm sorry but I'm not a teacher.

When you understand that subjective things are not just changing from one state to another, but whose sole state is changing, then you'd understand that there are no states. That would mean there is no value, as value itself is a state.

Rather ironic that the STV is a contradiction in terms.

This is beyond your scope, and when you understand it, you can reply to me.

[James]

was just browsing over the posts, only one minor point (and it's been addressed really..):


In such a "libertarian capitalist" society, one could sell one's self into slavery and it would be perfectly legitimate. It would be "consensual" after all, and with the minimal (indeed complete "seperation of economy and state") interference, what's to prevent you?


No this is incorrect. 'Traditional liberal theory' does not allow this.

[KC]

Governments are not trustable.

People are.


I know the agents are human and therefore faliable. They are bribeable...

Nothing like consistency to bolster your argument, eh?
That's right.

Sam Walton, Bill Gates.


Bill Clinton, George w. Bush.



Who do you trust?

Well, the fallacy in your logic is rather obvious. You are saying "governments aren't trustable. People are."

Governments aren't trustable.
People are trustable.

Then you say "Agents (i.e. the government) are people". So what you're saying is:

A - People are trustable.
B - Governments aren't trustable.
C - The government is made up of people, therefore it is trustable.

As you can see, C is in direct contradiction to either A or B. Your logic is fallacious.

[Tungsten]

MrDoom

I love how they always call them "command" economies, yet never mention planned
Where anyone who deviates from or opposes the "plan" is punished? A planned economy is a "command economy".
ComradeRed

Now, as far as Mises "critique" of Marx it's too comical to be taken seriously. Mises basically construes a giant straw man derived from his misunderstanding of the LTV from the concept of labor. Then he criticizes it.
Failing to go into the specifics is the classic sign of a bullshitter.

This hinges on the libertarian concept of "free consent" which is the part decoupled from the world. Someone "consents" to work for a low wage because the alternative is starvation...this makes a mockery of the word "consent" in any meaningful sense.
Considering that you don't necesarily need a wage to live at all, your argument holds no water. I think what you actually mean is that if the choices available aren't to your liking, then there isn't any freedom or choice (even though no force has been used against you), which is ridiculous.

In such a "libertarian capitalist" society, one could sell one's self into slavery and it would be perfectly legitimate.
Not really, because you could walk out of it at any time.

It would be "consensual" after all, and with the minimal (indeed complete "seperation of economy and state") interference, what's to prevent you?

Or you selling your kids into slavery?
If you want to compain about technicalities, consider this: you're selling yourself into slavery every time you have a child.

You switch the independent and the dependent variables around.

It doesn't matter what the consumer does, "acts", or thinks. It matters what the firms do.
Firms don't operate in a vacuum, they're dependent on their consumers to remain in business.

Listen for a second: with subjective things, you can't quantify it.
Which marxist webshite did you copy this nugget of wisdom from?

If value is subjective, how come there are prices? A price is a quantified instance of value at a point in time (since prices change).
So evidently it can be quantified, otherwise no one would ever be able to make an economic decision.

Mises and Rothbard are philistines at best, they're arguments are circular and strawmen.
No doubt examples of these arguments, complete with why they're wrong will soon follow. Not.

Good rebuttle, obviously a seperation of "economy and state" will never result in slavery.

You really do need to get out more.
And what will a marriage of economy and state result in? Freedom? :lol:

What would prevent capitalists from simply blowing up their competition? Point-in-case: Russia.

It's the closest thing to a laissez-faire economy that you'll get,
That isn't laissez fair, it's anarchy. Something completely different.

[ComradeRed]

Great arguments, Tungsten! Yet again, you have either straw manned my arguments or turned them into ad hominems. Brilliant!

The only point you have is on your head, a "classic sign of a bullshiter" :rolleyes:

[Tigerman]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 21 2006, 01:23 PM





Governments are not trustable.

People are.


I know the agents are human and therefore faliable. They are bribeable...

Nothing like consistency to bolster your argument, eh?
That's right.

Sam Walton, Bill Gates.


Bill Clinton, George w. Bush.



Who do you trust?

Well, the fallacy in your logic is rather obvious. You are saying "governments aren't trustable. People are."

Governments aren't trustable.
People are trustable.

Then you say "Agents (i.e. the government) are people". So what you're saying is:

A - People are trustable.
B - Governments aren't trustable.
C - The government is made up of people, therefore it is trustable.

As you can see, C is in direct contradiction to either A or B. Your logic is fallacious.
Some people are trustable not all.

People in the free market have to use pursuasion


People in the government make decrees often based on junk science.



The people who tend to want to become agents of the state do so because they enjoy power over others.



People in business are there because they enjoy gaining the cooperation of others.


Everybody is a person, we all have a dark side.


So why trust power to anyone except your self?


Don't trust anybody!

Having said all that, I still trust Bill Gates over Bill Clinton or George W. Bush or any of their minions.

[вор в законе]

Most of the laissez-faire advocates are illiterate of mathematics. This is the mere reason why none of their theories can be proven mathematically and despite this very fact, their nonsese are being endorsed by the ''Orthodox'' Academia.

Unfortunately Economic 'Science' nowdays is mainly a dogma that protects concrete interests.

[red team]

Considering that you don't necesarily need a wage to live at all

You first.

#1
Throw away all you money since that most like came from wages then tell me whether or not you can survive without someone paying you a wage.


Not really, because you could walk out of it at any time.

Given that you do #1 from above at which point I will hire you for a job that cost you more to buy from me than I pay you. Since my "friends" who also have businesses that sell food and housing you can leave anytime and be free to starve or freeze... :lol:


If you want to compain about technicalities, consider this: you're selling yourself into slavery every time you have a child.

short term solution: government funded childcare.
long term solution: abolition of the family.


Firms don't operate in a vacuum, they're dependent on their consumers to remain in business.

Of course, that's why people who aren't rich are using their credit cards like there's no tomorrow. This rickety pyramid scheme is going to collapse and they know it.


So evidently it can be quantified

Nope, it's as subjective as a hollywood bimbo's fake boobs draped over an overpriced gas guzzler.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Anti-[email protected] 20 2006, 12:52 AM
Contrary to all the hooey that is spilled out here, free markets bring equality. For in a command economy there is no way to better your life other than to go through the ranks of government. In a TRUE capitalist economy (not the one we have now in the Bush regime, which is corporatist-capitalism) people would be equal but richer as well. Check out the site below. It was made by a man who has his Ph.D, probably more educated than your communist theorists will ever get.

Holistic Politics (http://www.holisticpolitics.org)
free markets fucked my family. yeah its good. fuck off

[Publius]

What's the difference between an absolute value that's unknown and a subjective value?

I'm certainly no expert in math (I'm terrible at it; that's why I doubt I'll become an economist), but I don't see how you can mathematically determine the price of a good, in any sort of uniform standard.

If indeed items do have an objective value, how do we go about determining it? The LTV?

Perhaps I'm just hopelessly out of my league because I don't even know Calculus yet, but I don't see how one could reasonably expect to find the worth of object using math, and have it mean something.

I mean, it's even possible that some things have objective value and some subjective, 'priceless' family items or something of the sort. How can you say?

I believe in the statement "an item is worth what people agree it's worth."

How is that incorrect?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Publius
What's the difference between an absolute value that's unknown and a subjective value?
Well, the objective value changes relative to the value of money, etc. It's changing price.

A subjective value is one who's sole state is change. It is impossible to quantify.

That's the difference in a nutshell.


I'm certainly no expert in math (I'm terrible at it; that's why I doubt I'll become an economist), but I don't see how you can mathematically determine the price of a good, in any sort of uniform standard.

If indeed items do have an objective value, how do we go about determining it? The LTV? Well, in science, there is usually weight on a theory's side if you can quantify things with it. It's part of the "making definite predictions" qualifications of a theory.

Economics won't be very much a science because, as I mentioned in a thread in Theory, it needs to integrate chaos/complexity theory into it...this is like the "kiss of death" in science. We can only make vast generalized propositions like "In 50 years, this is probably how it may turn out" as opposed to specific ones like "In 50 years the Japanese inflation rate will be x%".

As far as determining value, it's a tedious task. It's a nearly infinite summation that point wise converges to the value...that is to say, it's a messy summation.

It is possible, I've done it a few times for the hell of it in a model, but I did it by hand and it took an entire day :(



Perhaps I'm just hopelessly out of my league because I don't even know Calculus yet, but I don't see how one could reasonably expect to find the worth of object using math, and have it mean something. Yeah, the determination of value can be determined by an integral (albeit an unsolvable integral :P the irony). If you know: systems of equations, algebra, and linear algebra (kinda but not necessary) then you could start learning Sraffian economics.

But it depends, I would suggest reading Debunking Economics by Steve Keen if just for the last chapter. He has a thorough list of up and coming schools of thought...you could figure out where to find the technical papers, etc.


I mean, it's even possible that some things have objective value and some subjective, 'priceless' family items or something of the sort. How can you say? Well, probably against the wishes of the family, these items do have a rather low value.

But in such situations there is usually an "expert" evaluator who, if you watch odd shows like Roadside Rodeo or whatever, deems it valuable based on the quality of the work and the stuff it's made out of. The quality is clearly linked to labor, and the stuff it's made out of is valued based on its dated labor inputs.

THere is, simply put, no such thing as "priceless".

[Publius]

Well, probably against the wishes of the family, these items do have a rather low value.

This of course depends entirely on what you mean by 'value'.

It would be very easy to equivocate on this point, I believe.



But in such situations there is usually an "expert" evaluator who, if you watch odd shows like Roadside Rodeo or whatever, deems it valuable based on the quality of the work and the stuff it's made out of.

Yes, and?

Who's to say they're right? Are the chests of drawers they say are worth $1,000 worth 10 times as much as my $100 chest of drawers, in terms of their objective value? Did they have 10 times more labor, 10 times better labor?

Are they even necessarily better at say, holding clothes?

Here we're reaching a problem of different 'values'. Some people value things to collect them, some to use them. They're really entirely different. If one person wants a chest of drawers to put shorts in, and one wants it to look nice in the corner, they'll have an entirely seperate value system. How then can there be an 'objective value' if every decision you make is really based on a multitude of values. Historical, aesthetic, monetary, useful, etc.

What of consequence can you say about human economic behavior, mathematically, taking all this into account?



The quality is clearly linked to labor, and the stuff it's made out of is valued based on its dated labor inputs.

Ah yes but 'quality' has nothing to do with 'quality'.

FOr example, an old chest of drawers, wood on wood, would such. A new one, with plastic rollers would be much easier to use.

But which is 'higher quality'? Which has more 'value'?



THere is, simply put, no such thing as "priceless".

Human life?

[MrDoom]

Human life is not a commodity.

[Publius]

Human life is not a commodity.

Says who?

[ComradeRed]

This of course depends entirely on what you mean by 'value'.
The quantity of other goods exchangeable for a given quantity of a given good.


Yes, and?

Who's to say they're right? Are the chests of drawers they say are worth $1,000 worth 10 times as much as my $100 chest of drawers, in terms of their objective value? Did they have 10 times more labor, 10 times better labor?

Are they even necessarily better at say, holding clothes?

Here we're reaching a problem of different 'values'. Some people value things to collect them, some to use them. They're really entirely different. If one person wants a chest of drawers to put shorts in, and one wants it to look nice in the corner, they'll have an entirely seperate value system. How then can there be an 'objective value' if every decision you make is really based on a multitude of values. Historical, aesthetic, monetary, useful, etc.

What of consequence can you say about human economic behavior, mathematically, taking all this into account? It really depends on the atmosphere...if it's an auction, then how one perceives a good will affect one's jusdgement (this is known as Commodity Fetishism).

However, if you were to go to the supermarket (supposing they sold drawers for some reason), you couldn't haggle for the drawers. It's a "buy-or-no-buy" opportunity.

This actually is a very serious problem then to conventional (Neoclassical) economic thought since the suppy and demand curves would both be vertical for the individual. You would end up with a "quantized" demand "curve"...which would then be impossible to measure.

The price at which these drawers are sold at are at a price which is equivalent to the inputs; Sraffa argued this point and had the math to back him up.

(If you actually do go to the library and request his book, The Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, he demonstrates that in an economy that is static and constantly in equilibrium cannot have supply and demand curves! The terrible irony is, of course, that these are the conditions which Neoclassicals claim to measure supply and demand at!)

The common question that first comes to mind is "What about profit if the inputs' value are equal to the value of the outputs?" The answer is quite simple, if there is more of the outputs produced than is used, then the price changes for the quantity to factor in profit using a scalar value r, the rate of profit, which is then added to one and multiplied by the input matrix (or (1+r)B for the input matrix B ).

Then if you really want to get into it, you can reduce it back to its dated labor inputs through an infinite summation that pointwise converges to some arbitrary number, and the ratios of these arbitrary numbers is the value.


Ah yes but 'quality' has nothing to do with 'quality'. :unsure: Yeah, quality has everything to do with quality, though I don't see how this is relevant.



FOr example, an old chest of drawers, wood on wood, would such. A new one, with plastic rollers would be much easier to use.

But which is 'higher quality'? Which has more 'value'? Have you ever compared the prices of wooden drawers to that of plastic drawers? The wooden ones are more expensive...probably because more labor went into it.

Or the inputs for the wooden drawers were more expensive, having to take into account things like the wood, the varnish, the labor, etc.



A human life is not a commodity
Says who? So you support slavery? :huh:

[Publius]

The quantity of other goods exchangeable for a given quantity of a given good.


Alright.



It really depends on the atmosphere...if it's an auction, then how one perceives a good will affect one's jusdgement (this is known as Commodity Fetishism).

However, if you were to go to the supermarket (supposing they sold drawers for some reason), you couldn't haggle for the drawers. It's a "buy-or-no-buy" opportunity.

You can haggle at many stores, particularly for large ticket items.

Sometimes you can get the 'floor model' for a lower price, if they don't have the item in stock, etc.



This actually is a very serious problem then to conventional (Neoclassical) economic thought since the suppy and demand curves would both be vertical for the individual. You would end up with a "quantized" demand "curve"...which would then be impossible to measure.

How would the supply curve be vertical?



The price at which these drawers are sold at are at a price which is equivalent to the inputs; Sraffa argued this point and had the math to back him up.

I'll take your word for it.

But how can this be the case when prices change? How can an MSRP and a sale price both be 'objectively' based on the labor that went in? It's not as if value itself is being taken out of the item.

Now I understand that items that require a lot of specialized labor sell for more than items that require very little unspecialized labor, but I don't see how that's an 'objective value'.

Persumably a diamond ring isn't that hard to produce, certainly less difficult to produce than a car, but a diamand ring of sufficient size and quality is worth more than an old, POS car.

How do you account for this (without doing something stupid like totalling the 'labor' required to make a diamond, or something like that)?

Water is basically free in your home (or at least very cheap), but at a concert of a theme park it could be $3 or $4 dollars a bottle.

Did some extra labor somehow get into that water?

If items are sold at a price equivilent to the inputs, how can prices change if the inputs remain static, is I guess the basic question?



(If you actually do go to the library and request his book,

I can assure you my local libraries won't have it.


The Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, he demonstrates that in an economy that is static and constantly in equilibrium cannot have supply and demand curves! The terrible irony is, of course, that these are the conditions which Neoclassicals claim to measure supply and demand at!)

I think I see your argument here. If there are no problems in the economy, if it is all running at peak efficiency (Pareto efficient, I believe), there is no way that supply and demand can change, because for them to change, some part of the economy would have to not be Pareto efficient, or some part of the market would have to behave irrationally, both of which go against neo-classical theory.

Is that the error?



The common question that first comes to mind is "What about profit if the inputs' value are equal to the value of the outputs?" The answer is quite simple, if there is more of the outputs produced than is used, then the price changes for the quantity to factor in profit using a scalar value r, the rate of profit, which is then added to one and multiplied by the input matrix (or (1+r)B for the input matrix B ).

I see...



Then if you really want to get into it, you can reduce it back to its dated labor inputs through an infinite summation that pointwise converges to some arbitrary number, and the ratios of these arbitrary numbers is the value.

So we can determine the 'objective' value of an object through 'infinite' series of 'arbitrary' numbers?


:unsure: Yeah, quality has everything to do with quality, though I don't see how this is relevant.


I mean the difference between the quality of the worksmanship and the quality of the item as a clothes dispenser.

It may be ornately carved, but it may suck as a chest of drawers.


Have you ever compared the prices of wooden drawers to that of plastic drawers? The wooden ones are more expensive...probably because more labor went into it.

Probably.

But I don't value wooden ones more. I value the ones that required less labor. In fact, I'd be willing to pay more for ones with plastic rollers than wood-on-wood even if less overall labor went into producing them.



Or the inputs for the wooden drawers were more expensive, having to take into account things like the wood, the varnish, the labor, etc.

Or people prefer them, perhaps because they are 'better looking', or for any reason really.


So you support slavery? :huh:

No. I just don't like people stating opinions as facts. I don't think life is a commodity any more than I think murder is right. But I'm not going to appeal to some objective morality to say its wrong, as that doesn't exist.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)You can haggle at many stores, particularly for large ticket items.

Sometimes you can get the 'floor model' for a lower price, if they don't have the item in stock, etc.[/b] Have you actually tried this out in practice?

Go to the supermarket and try haggling for an apple (or any arbitrary commodity). I can tell you from experience it doesn't work.


How would the supply curve be vertical? Well, since I am not integrating time, it would be a snap-shot of the economy at a given time.

This is actually a very interesting dilemma, since there are a certain quantity of goods produced at a certain "snapshot" of a given economy. The supply "curve" would shift left and right, but still be vertical since you can't change what has been produced and is available.


But how can this be the case when prices change? How can an MSRP and a sale price both be 'objectively' based on the labor that went in? It's not as if value itself is being taken out of the item. Your forgetting the labor to get the item to the sales floor, which is actually a significant factor in our modern times.


Now I understand that items that require a lot of specialized labor sell for more than items that require very little unspecialized labor, but I don't see how that's an 'objective value'.

Persumably a diamond ring isn't that hard to produce, certainly less difficult to produce than a car, but a diamand ring of sufficient size and quality is worth more than an old, POS car.

How do you account for this (without doing something stupid like totalling the 'labor' required to make a diamond, or something like that)?

Marx
The value of a commodity would therefore remain constant, if the labour time required for its production also remained constant. But the latter changes with every variation in the productiveness of labour. This productiveness is determined by various circumstances, amongst others, by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the social organisation of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical conditions. For example, the same amount of labour in favourable seasons is embodied in 8 bushels of corn, and in unfavourable, only in four. The same labour extracts from rich mines more metal than from poor mines. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth’s surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour time. Consequently much labour is represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years, ending in 1823, had not realised the price of one-and-a-half years’ average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, and therefore represented more value. With richer mines, the same quantity of labour would embody itself in more diamonds, and their value would fall. If we could succeed at a small expenditure of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks. In general, the greater the productiveness of labour, the less is the labour time required for the production of an article, the less is the amount of labour crystallised in that article, and the less is its value; and vice versâ, the less the productiveness of labour, the greater is the labour time required for the production of an article, and the greater is its value. The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it.


Water is basically free in your home (or at least very cheap), but at a concert of a theme park it could be $3 or $4 dollars a bottle.

Did some extra labor somehow get into that water? Well, I don't know about your water, but mine is cloudy.

The water in bottles are usually purified, and sometimes have minerals added. Take this into account, because purifying water is not a cheap thing to do if you do it right.

You also have to learn about the concept of Commodity Fetishism (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S4) which affects the value of goods in such trivial situations.



If items are sold at a price equivilent to the inputs, how can prices change if the inputs remain static, is I guess the basic question? The point is that under the conditions assumed by Neoclassical economists to exist, that Neoclassical economics breaks down rather quickly.

I agree that prices are dynamic and involve a great deal of complexity; economics is, if anything, a complexity science.

But that's not Sraffa's point; his point is that Neoclassical economics doesn't work within its own conditions. This is a serious problem for Neoclassical economists, which they simply shrug off.


I think I see your argument here. If there are no problems in the economy, if it is all running at peak efficiency (Pareto efficient, I believe), there is no way that supply and demand can change, because for them to change, some part of the economy would have to not be Pareto efficient, or some part of the market would have to behave irrationally, both of which go against neo-classical theory.

Is that the error? That's kind of my argument...but not really.

What I am saying is that because the economy is measured statically, there can't be changes in the supply and demand curves.

The reasoning that economists use to justify the changes in supply and demand curves (i.e. why the slope of the curves is defineable) is rather comical; here is there same reasoning to prove the Earth is flat.

P1: The Earth is round.
P2: The soles of my shoes is flat (they are slightly round, but it is negligible and can be ignored).
P3: The distance between my feet are flat (it's slightly round, but negligibly and can be ignored).
P4: The distance between me and my desk is flat (it's negligibly round, and for all intents and purposes it's flat).

So on and so forth until the world itself is flat. The exception is that economists apply it to time...being a physicist (especially one whose focus is relativity) this is appaling!

Thus if you actually do treat everything in marginalism according to some static time frame, they cease being curves...and everything falls apart like a cheap watch.


So we can determine the 'objective' value of an object through 'infinite' series of 'arbitrary' numbers? You might be interested in reading this (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm) chapter of Das Kapital on exchange.

It's actually very interesting and will answer your question with a far more esoteric writing style than I could ever hope for :P

Basically, the value of a good X is expressible through another good Y. Suppose a commodity X is exchangeable for b commodity Y, we can write it as a commodity X = b commodity Y.

If we introduce a third commodity, c commodity Z is exchangeable for b commodity Y, we can expand the equality to be a commodity X = b commodity Y = c commodity Z.

I am not sure if you have played with these mathematically, but if the a=2,b=4, and c=8, then we can reduce the entire figure to be: 1 X = 2 Y = 4 Z.

What is important is the ratios.

The ratios of these arbitrary numbers is the value of the respective commodities. This may seem odd, but QFT works in a similiar manner.

And by the by, a convergent infinite series is like an infinite summation SUM^{infinity}_{i=0} 2^-i = 1 + .5 + .25 + .125 +... = 1 + lim_{n->infinity} ((n-1)/n) = 1 + lim_{n->infinity} 1 - n^-1 = = 1 + 1 - 0 =2. Don't worry too much about this, the concept of a limit is something that is nearly an infinitely deep philosophical concept.


I mean the difference between the quality of the worksmanship and the quality of the item as a clothes dispenser.

It may be ornately carved, but it may suck as a chest of drawers. Out of curiousity, have you ever had drawers that "sucked as a chest of drawers" (that statement seems to be oozing platonism)?

At any rate, you may choose to buy the drawers. They are rather set as a price, supposing you bought them and realized they were no good, then there is no use in them and thus it is perceived to be worthless.

What good is a dull knife? There's no use to it, thus there is no value in it. But do not mistake this as utility = price. Utility is only a foundation which determines if price exists or not to an individual. Value is determined independently of utility.


Probably.

But I don't value wooden ones more. I value the ones that required less labor. In fact, I'd be willing to pay more for ones with plastic rollers than wood-on-wood even if less overall labor went into producing them. Again, usefulness is the foundation for value (though not the determinant of it) as perceived by the individual.

I'm sure your going to ask something like "Why isn't utility the source of value?" Well it's quite elementary (kinda).

When you look at things in term of utility, you don't quantify it. One says "This is useful, but this other thing is not."

But if you insist on quantifying it (which is mathematically impossible, since there is no standard units of utility), how much utility is given from art? Or diamonds? Or gold? I don't know about you, but it's useless to me...yet they still have value for some reason.


Or people prefer them, perhaps because they are 'better looking', or for any reason really. Well, one of the big problems is that at a market (supermarket, retailer, whatever), you really can't haggle. The only places where you can is at a car retailer, and it's not that effective either.

In a modern economy, utility plays the role of a boolean-valued function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/boolean-valued+function) (any arbitrary boolean valued function would work). If there is usefulness in the item, it returns 1, otherwise (the item being useless) it returns 0.

This is then multiplied by a function which determines the value of the commodity. Thus logically, if there is usefulness, it determines that the item was sold at the price. As you would expect, this doesn't determine how much one is willing to spend (since that is impossible).

This is very curious because if a commodity is represented mathematically it'd a functional...just an interesting aside.

The point is that utility can't be proven to have any connection to value other than it being the foundation for it...otherwise value becomes unquantifiable, which means that price wouldn't be quantifiable either.

[colonelguppy]

better living =/= equality

don't fool yourself like i used to that capitalism brings equality, it doesn't.

[Nusocialist]

Man,I hate these lassez faire types,
if this were true,why did the 20s and 80s see inequality rise,whereas the more regulated and controlled post-war till the early 70s/keynesian era not only see inequality decrease,but also the greatest US growth ever.

[colonelguppy]

the 20's were regulated.

keynesian economics brought stagflation, reforms were able unleash our economy closer to its true potential.

[Nusocialist]

the 20's were regulated.

keynesian economics brought stagflation, reforms were able unleash our economy closer to its true potential.
Compared to the time after they were more unregulated.

Stagflation was either caused by the fact wages were contracted to increase even in recession or probably more likely by the shock of rising oil prices.Neither factors are inherrent to Keynesian economics.

And by true potential do you mean lower growth,rising inequility and stagnate wages for the lower and even some of the middle classes?

The post-war era was called the golden age of capitalism for a reason.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 07:28 PM

the 20's were regulated.

keynesian economics brought stagflation, reforms were able unleash our economy closer to its true potential.
Compared to the time after they were more unregulated.

Stagflation was either caused by the fact wages were contracted to increase even in recession or probably more likely by the shock of rising oil prices.Neither factors are inherrent to Keynesian economics.

And by true potential do you mean lower growth,rising inequility and stagnate wages for the lower and even some of the middle classes?

The post-war era was called the golden age of capitalism for a reason.
the pre new deal era was still regulated, albeit in a way different then the post era. mainly in terms of protectionism and manipulating the monetary system, which ultimately resulted in a hirrible eeconomic crash.

While market externalities contributed, a major contributor to stagflation was again the government thinking they can control the monetary system to make the eocnomy do what they want, plus debt spending to create artificial demand which also resulted in rising prices while regulation and taxation harmed growth. all these are inherent to keynesian economics.

[Hooligan32]

Export processing zones allow for absolutely no economic growth and the World Bank (60% of which is owned by the U.S. treasury as I'm sure most of you know) and WTO would never (ever) allow growth in impoverished nations to occur as the idea completely opposes their position of keeping serfs under the heels of increasingly obese kings in developed nations. The best chance we have, as I see it, is to feverishly work to educate people about these crimes through media (real fucking media), though I joined these boards to learn of other methods.