Decline And Fall Of The American Empire

I'm not American, so my opinion generally doesn't count for too much.Where I live the American influence is waning and diminishing rapidly. The Chinese influences are increasing exponentially. Courses in the Mandarin and Cantonese languages are introduced in even primary schools at a rapid rate.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I'd say use or want rather than need as you can value you things that you do not need. No, the added hundred bucks (not dollars) came from selling the rights to the timber. There was no labor at all involved in that value of the rights to the timber. I sold the rights to the trees. The trees are still there. And they gotta pay me for the actual timber, too. They also never invented the wheel... *shrugs* That's a different claim than value only being able to originate in labor. And it depends on what you mean by labor.

Those trees didn't magically increase in value when you bought the land. You just underpaid for them. I don't know what you mean by "the labour class". I'm just talking about labour. Indeed. It's a bullshit classification - you can include or exclude at your convenience. YES! It's ambiguous. And yet you guys call it nonsense.All I've done is ask for examples that don't involve labour.

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. You haven't shown where the added "value" comes from. Is it magic? 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.

None of that affects the fact that value does not come from labor. I have no idea what point you think you are making with this line of argument.

Then for God's sake, come up with an example that makes sense. Where does value magically come from in your world? 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.

I've given examples. You dispute them by claiming that the value is created by the purchaser rather than being part of what is purposed. You ignore the fact that even a day laborer won't part with his money unless he is receiving something of value.The problem is not that my answers do not make sense, it is that you refused to accept my answers. As long as we hold those positions, this discussion is not going anywhere. Of course, your dumbass then insists that you've won the argument.If we want a source for value, it is a combination of ownership/control and scarcity. Even labor's value is set in this way. You work at a job for 100 hours, but because a couple of hundred million other forks, including 100,000 folks within driving distance can do the same job, your labor is worth 7.25 per hour, and only that because the government artificially props it up. On the other hand, Cam Newton gets 10,000 times your pay just by granting a car dealer the right to publicize that he buys cars there. Labor is just another resource, and it is not involved in every transaction. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So answer the dispute. Where does the value magically come from in your world? And where does the money he receives come from? Where is the magical source? I pointed out how your answers don't work. As I've said, I'm not making an argument. I'm trying to understand yours. If you can't back it up or if you choose to abandon it, that doesn't break my heart.

You're not making any sense. You prolly shouldn't enter a discussion involving the proletariat if you don't know what the labor class means.And whatever it is you're "just" talking about, you refuse to define it - and until then you'll continue to be posting nonsense. That's not what that meant, but whatevs. Look:Some people own the land. Some people work the land.The land owner can make money without there being work done by laborers. It's not magic. Uh, being ambiguous is not making sense by definition. You just admitted you're posting nonsense. And you've been given them.

I've expanded my answer to include a source for value. But again, this is not rocket science. At this point, your inability to understand is on you.

You could try saying more than, "Nuh uh." Explain what you don't understand.Allow me to hold your hand: You bought the land for 100 and then turned around and sold the logging rights for 200. You COULD have told the original owner that he could get 200 for the logging rights. You COULD have offered to find a buyer for the logging rights in return for a finder's fee of, say, 10 per cent.The trees didn't gain value just because you bought them. They were always worth the 200. You underpaid for them. If you knew they were worth 200, you deliberately ripped the guy off. I said I didn't know what YOU mean by the labour class. We're not talking about classes here. How did they come to own the land?

Where? If I've failed to address your points, give me the chance to do it now.You don't add much to a discussion by telling people they're too dumb to understand. Explain it better.

I don't see how you're following anything that I'm saying and I feel like I'm wasting my time.Good day, sir.

I'm asking direct questions about what you're saying. How is that not following what you're saying?

You're not following because your questions are not about what I'm saying. They're hardly tangential. They're certainly not direct to the point.You're literally posting nonsense. And you refuse to answer my questions.We're done here.