Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
11 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,462 Year: 3,719/9,624 Month: 590/974 Week: 203/276 Day: 43/34 Hour: 6/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Decline And Fall Of The American Empire
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 77 of 170 (820089)
09-16-2017 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Phat
09-15-2017 1:35 PM


Re: Does All Money Originate From Labor?
Phat writes:
Because what if the baker cant come to an agreement with the farmer?
What if the cashier can't come to an agreement with Safeway?
Phat writes:
Everyone has to agree on a means of value before the economy starts to work.
Economies worked long before there were standard units of exchange. If the farmer needs capital - e.g. seed - to get started, he gets it from another farmer. What he uses to pay for it isn't particularly relevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Phat, posted 09-15-2017 1:35 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 79 of 170 (820203)
09-17-2017 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by New Cat's Eye
09-16-2017 4:59 PM


Re: Bye Bye Global Reserve Currency
New Cat's Eye writes:
What about valuable natural resources?
How do we obtain those natural resources? Do they just leap out of the ground into the capitalist's pocket?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-16-2017 4:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Phat, posted 09-17-2017 3:03 PM ringo has replied
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-17-2017 4:21 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 81 of 170 (820210)
09-17-2017 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Phat
09-17-2017 3:03 PM


Re: The Value of Labor
Phat writes:
Which labor among them should receive the ultimate value of the sold product?
It would be hard to work out a scale of "should" that had any meaning. "Should" the guy who risks his life down in the mine get more or less than the guy who pushes the buttons that print the cheques?
Phat writes:
Realistically, which labor does receive the most?
Realistically, much of the cost to the end-user goes to parasites who are not essential to the process.
Phat writes:
The question is what percentage of the sale value should each aspect of the labor receive?
For a start, everybody "should" be paid a living wage. But according to the capitalists, paying a living wage to a waitress or a fruit picker would ruin the economy. Somehow, we mange to survive paying a Safeway cashier twice as much as a 7-Eleven cashier but they still claim that a higher minimum wage would kill jobs.
The sad part is that too many 7-Eleven cashiers and Safeway cahiers believe them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Phat, posted 09-17-2017 3:03 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 85 of 170 (820254)
09-18-2017 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by New Cat's Eye
09-17-2017 4:21 PM


New Cat's Eye writes:
I don't understand how that answers my questions.
Do you understand that digging resources out of the ground requires labour?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-17-2017 4:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-18-2017 12:18 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 86 of 170 (820255)
09-18-2017 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by NoNukes
09-17-2017 7:19 PM


NoNukes writes:
To pretend that the entire value of such things comes from labor is ridiculous.
And yet your examples involve "very little labour", not no labour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2017 7:19 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 87 of 170 (820256)
09-18-2017 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by New Cat's Eye
09-17-2017 8:51 PM


New Cat's Eye writes:
So, you could define labor so broadly as to be like "human activity" or something....
Show me a capitalist who says he doesn't "work hard' for his money.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-17-2017 8:51 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Phat, posted 09-18-2017 12:00 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 89 of 170 (820261)
09-18-2017 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Phat
09-18-2017 12:00 PM


Re: If Labor=Value, how hard should we work?
Phat writes:
Were you to throw me in a third world nation where I was pulling old computer parts apart for copper wire, I would probably work harder, and gripe louder at the pennies a day i earned.
In my experience, the ones who gripe the loudest aren't working while they're doing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Phat, posted 09-18-2017 12:00 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 92 of 170 (820266)
09-18-2017 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Phat
09-18-2017 12:15 PM


Re: Irma will be costly
Phat writes:
Yes...if the money comes out of social security trust funds simply to pay mass labor.
Really? Rebuilding somebody's home is a bad thing? Paying somebody to work is a bad thing? Really? Your own social security is more important? Really?
(And your contempt for "mass labor" is showing through again.)
Phat writes:
For the vanishing middle class, our future is tied up in "future obligations" while current obligations rob us of what we collectively saved.
If your own future is so bloody important, you should be trying to untie it.
Phat writes:
The whole problem with the rising tide argument is that it demolishes all of the houses built above water level.
You're confusing your metaphors. The rising tide argument doesn't demolish anything. It allows the poorest members of society to have decent housing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Phat, posted 09-18-2017 12:15 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 93 of 170 (820267)
09-18-2017 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by New Cat's Eye
09-18-2017 12:18 PM


New Cat's Eye writes:
Say I buy a plot of land for 100 bucks, and somebody offers me 200 bucks for the rights to harvest the timber. I just gained 100 bucks through no labor.
Where does the 100 bucks you gained come from? At some point, doesn't somebody work for it, even if you don't?
New cat's Eye writes:
Say I buy a plot of land for 100 bucks, and somebody offers me 200 bucks for the rights to harvest the timber. I just gained 100 bucks through no labor.
Say I walk into a bank with a gun and walk out with 100 bucks. I just gained 100 bucks with no labour.
But didn't somebody work for that 100 bucks?
New Cat's Eye writes:
Also, not all hard work is labor, imho.
And not all water is wet, I suppose. If you define it like that, you can come up with any conclusion you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-18-2017 12:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-18-2017 12:39 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 95 of 170 (820269)
09-18-2017 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by NoNukes
09-18-2017 12:35 PM


NoNukes writes:
Those things are increases simply because other humans want or need for your objects increases.
The "value" is what the buyer is willing to pay - and his ability to pay is based on labour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by NoNukes, posted 09-18-2017 12:35 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by NoNukes, posted 09-18-2017 12:39 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 98 of 170 (820273)
09-18-2017 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by New Cat's Eye
09-18-2017 12:39 PM


New Cat's Eye writes:
Your claim is not that all bucks come from labor. It is that all value comes from labor.
Value is measured in bucks. If bucks come from labour then value comes from labour.
New Cat's Eye writes:
If labor is the only source of value, then who's labor causes the value that naturally occurs in the resources?
You haven't established that natural resources have any "value' beyond what can be added by labor.
New Cat's Eye writes:
I'm still waiting for your definition of labor.
In Message 84 you said, "...you could define labor so broadly as to be like "human activity" or something...." and in Message 91 you said, "...not all hard work is labor...."
I lean more toward the first one. Maybe you can give some examples of human activity that can't be called labour.
I'd also be interested in your idea of the difference between work and labour. I might go so far as to say that even easy work is labour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-18-2017 12:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-18-2017 1:27 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 99 of 170 (820275)
09-18-2017 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by NoNukes
09-18-2017 12:39 PM


NoNukes writes:
Sometimes, Ringo. Not always. Not all money is made by expending labor.
Then give some examples. When is something worth more than what the buyer is willing or able to pay?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by NoNukes, posted 09-18-2017 12:39 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by NoNukes, posted 09-18-2017 1:45 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 108 of 170 (820340)
09-19-2017 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by New Cat's Eye
09-18-2017 1:27 PM


New Cat's Eye writes:
Someone paid me for the rights to harvest the trees from my property. Those trees have value before anybody has ever touched them, and I made money off them without doing anything. I just had to own the land.
Those trees didn't magically increase in value when you bought the land. You just underpaid for them.
New Cat's Eye writes:
Owning the business requires human activity but they are typically excluded from the labor class.
Making sales deals on the fruits of the labor is also typically exluded from the labor class.
The stock brokers trying to sell shares in the company are typically excluded from the labor class.
I don't know what you mean by "the labour class". I'm just talking about labour.
New Cat's Eye writes:
The Accounting and Human Resources Department are sometimes exluded and sometimes included.
Indeed. It's a bullshit classification - you can include or exclude at your convenience.
New Cat's Eye writes:
So in that context, when you say all value comes from labor, its pretty ambiguous what you mean.
YES! It's ambiguous. And yet you guys call it nonsense.
All I've done is ask for examples that don't involve labour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-18-2017 1:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-19-2017 12:40 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 109 of 170 (820341)
09-19-2017 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by NoNukes
09-18-2017 1:45 PM


NoNukes writes:
Things are often worth more than the buyer is able to pay.
What something is "worth" depends entirely on what somebody is willing and able to pay. You can claim that your painting is worth millions but if nobody agrees, it isn't.
NoNukes writes:
The ultimate buyer still does not have to pay using labor.
You haven't shown where the added "value" comes from. Is it magic?
NoNukes writes:
For example, I can extract money from my house by borrowing more than its appreciated value, investing the funds in some passive income like buying wine to age. In the end, I can settle up and have additional funds with no expenditure of labor. It can very well be that everyone that I exchange with earned their money in similar, non-labor, ways
Again, the wine only increases in value if somebody is willing and able to pay more. Where does he get the money that he is willing and able to spend?
You can't have an infinite regression of everybody getting their money for nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by NoNukes, posted 09-18-2017 1:45 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by NoNukes, posted 09-19-2017 12:12 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 111 of 170 (820345)
09-19-2017 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by NoNukes
09-19-2017 12:12 PM


NoNukes writes:
None of that affects the fact that value does not come from labor.
Then for God's sake, come up with an example that makes sense. Where does value magically come from in your world?
NoNukes writes:
I have no idea what point you think you are making with this line of argument.
I am neither making a point nor taking a position. I'm trying to make sense of yours. So far, there doesn't seem to be any.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by NoNukes, posted 09-19-2017 12:12 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by NoNukes, posted 09-19-2017 12:25 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024