|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Decline And Fall Of The American Empire | |||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
So answer the dispute. Where does the value magically come from in your world?
You dispute them by claiming that the value is created by the purchaser rather than being part of what is purposed. Nonukes writes:
And where does the money he receives come from? Where is the magical source?
You ignore the fact that even a day laborer won't part with his money unless he is receiving something of value. NoNukes writes:
I pointed out how your answers don't work.
The problem is not that my answers do not make sense, it is that you refused to accept my answers. NoNukes writes:
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.
Of course, your dumbass then insists that you've won the argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
New Cat's Eye writes:
You could try saying more than, "Nuh uh." Explain what you don't understand. You're not making any sense. 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.
New Cat's Eye writes:
I said I didn't know what YOU mean by the labour class. We're not talking about classes here.
You prolly shouldn't enter a discussion involving the proletariat if you don't know what the labor class means. New Cat's Eye writes:
How did they come to own the land?
Some people own the land.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Where? If I've failed to address your points, give me the chance to do it now. I've expanded my answer to include a source for value. You don't add much to a discussion by telling people they're too dumb to understand. Explain it better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
New Cat's Eye writes:
I'm asking direct questions about what you're saying. How is that not following what you're saying?
I don't see how you're following anything that I'm saying....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
New Cat's Eye writes:
Bullshit. You're not following because your questions are not about what I'm saying. You pay 100 for a plot of land and sell the logging rights for 200. You claim that's a "gain in value" of 100. But the trees didn't change. They fact that you only paid 100 means that you underpaid, not that the trees magically gained value. How is that not about what you're saying? If you buy something for half price, the value doesn't doubkle the minute you leave the store.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
New Cat's Eye writes:
That's a fictitious "value". You can believe your painting is worth a million but unless somebody is willing to pay a million for it, it isn't really worth a million.
Now, the land has more value to me.... New Cat's Eye writes:
It's what somebody is willing and able to pay. They are able to pay because they have earned the money somehow. At some point, the money originates in labor.
If it isn't what someone is willing to pay for it, then what determines the value? New Cat's Eye writes:
The "rights" in and of themselves are meaningless. You can have the rights to every tree in the world but they're worth nothing unless you can cut them down and sell them.
If all value comes from labor, then who's labor provided the value to the rights to the trees? New Cat's Eye writes:
There is no value that naturally exists in the resources. They have no value until somebody does something.
Who's labor adds the value that naturally exists in the resources?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
The value is the final price. It's what somebody actually pays. Cat's Eye paid less than the real value. That doesn't mean the value increased.
What labour increases the value in any bidding war?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
New Cat's Eye writes:
I'm not making a claim. I'm questioning yours. Then that's just another undefined term in your claim. All value comes from labor - for your own private definitions of value and labor that you refuse to explain. You're the one who claims that tress magically increase in value while you're just sitting there and you refuse to explain how. You're the one who says work is not the same as labour and you refuse to explain how.
New Cat's Eye writes:
So, no substance in your answer = no substance in your position.
ringo writes:
There is no value that naturally exists in the resources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
New Cat's Eye writes:
Be specific. if I've failed to answer ANYTHING, point it out specifically.
You won't define your terms and you refuse to answer questions. New Cat's Eye writes:
I'm not using any unusual definitions. I'll admit I don't understand your claim that labour and work are not the same. As far as I'm concerned, they are. I wish you'd point out the difference.
Until you define value and labor you're just having a toss.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
When the cash changes hands.
When is a price "final?" Stile writes:
What the hell are you talking about? CE "actually paid" $100 originally, but that wasn't "final" because someone "actually paid" a higher price later? If CE owns the property for 10 years, does that $100 become final? New Cat's Eye paid 100 for the land. Somebody paid New Cat's Eye 200 for the logging rights. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what he paid for the land. The trees did not change value.
Stile writes:
I have no axe to grind here. I'll gladly agree that value can increase without labour - if anybody can produce a good example. So far, nobody has. So far, in every case what is actually paid is money that was earned at some point by labour. Feel free to give any other example you can think of.
This seems like a definitional run-around just to not admit that, perhaps, value can increase/change without labor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Follow the money. Where did it come from?
No one has done any labor yet (the trees still stand).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
During the Depression, my father's family had zero income for two straight years. That's ZERO cash. They were farmers, so they had eggs, milk, vegetables, etc. (Ironically, living in the greatest wheat-exporting area in the world, they had to buy flour - and couldn't.) They didn't starve but they worked harder than ever to survive. Just for no cash. OK lets take the Great Depression. Everyone was out of work. Why couldnt they just start working and create more money through their labor? My point is that all money involves work. That doesn't mean that all work involves money.
Phat writes:
And the worker IS the taxpayer.
Like you said, the hurricanes provide work for lots of labor. But the taxpayer pays.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
New Cat's Eye writes:
I didn't say it requires your labour. I said it requires somebody's labour - to acquire the money that measures the value.
My point about natural resources is that there is a lot of value in having ownership of them that doesn't require any of your labor to acquire... New Cat's Eye writes:
Market fluctuations depend on how much of somebody's labour somebody is willing and able to spend on the resources.
On top of that, their value can increase in ways that don't originate in labor - like market fluctuations. New Cat's Eye writes:
That's exactly what arbitrary means. Society arbitrarily decides that you own the trees but not the minerals. Society arbitrarily decides that you can build a house on your land but not a chemical plant. Society arbitrarily decides that you can sell your land to country A but not to country B.
Society has determined that certain individuals own certain things, and that ownership is not arbitrary. New Cat's Eye writes:
Uh huh. That's what I've been saying, that the value comes from labour. If somebody "uses my labour" for their own benefit, the value is coming from labour even if the labourer doesn't receive the benefit.
If the only way you know how to create value is through labor, then people are going to use thier money to buy your labor to create value for themselves. New Cat's Eye writes:
I never said anything about "the Labour Class".
So anyways, going back further - you entered a discussion revolving around the Labor Class New Cat's Eye writes:
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. That's a different discussion. I said that labour and taking advantage of somebody else's labour both involve labour.
There's nothing wrong with profiting off of human labor when you're risking your money to end up creating more valuable things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
New Cat's Eye writes:
That's what I'm saying.
It takes work to generate money. New Cat's Eye writes:
There are no fixed standards for determining ownership. That's why we need courts to figure it out. I gave examples.
No, arbitrary means randomly selected. There's a process for determining ownership. And paperwork n'stuff. That's not arbitrary. New Cat's Eye writes:
I began discussing it around Message 40, long before your first post in the thread.
After I pried it out of you... New Cat's Eye writes:
And yet you agreed above that, "It takes work to generate money." Isn't that contradictory? Not all value comes from labor. Or is it based on your claim that work and labour are different? I have asked you a number of times to explain the difference.
New Cat's Eye writes:
Nothing I have said applies to one "class" or another. I don't believe in class distinctions at all. What we have in Canada - and probably the US too - is a spectrum, not a series of distinct groups.
You do realize that the proliteriat is the Labor Class, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
New Cat's Eye writes:
I don't think so. The value doesn't actually change until somebody agrees to pay you. You can take a risk on the lottery but that doesn't mean you're worth millions before you win.
Risk adds value. New Cat's Eye writes:
That's a plausible distinction - but how is it pertinent to this discussion?
You can make a machine that does work - labor is done by a human.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024