Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8794 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-16-2017 11:54 PM
333 online now:
DC85, Dr Adequate, DrJones*, nwr, PaulK (5 members, 328 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 820,722 Year: 25,328/21,208 Month: 955/2,338 Week: 76/450 Day: 34/42 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Author Topic:   Decline And Fall Of The American Empire
ringo
Member
Posts: 13715
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 136 of 170 (820484)
09-21-2017 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by New Cat's Eye
09-21-2017 12:00 PM


New Cat's Eye writes:

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.


I'm not making a claim. I'm questioning yours.

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:

ringo writes:

There is no value that naturally exists in the resources.



So, no substance in your answer = no substance in your position.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2017 12:00 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2017 1:03 PM ringo has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11761
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 137 of 170 (820488)
09-21-2017 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by ringo
09-21-2017 12:06 PM


So, no substance in your answer = no substance in your position.

You looking in the mirror? You won't define your terms and you refuse to answer questions.

quote:

But the real "value" of something can only originate in labor, I think.

Until you define value and labor you're just having a toss.

So I'll leave you to yourself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ringo, posted 09-21-2017 12:06 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by ringo, posted 09-21-2017 1:22 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3006
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 138 of 170 (820489)
09-21-2017 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by ringo
09-21-2017 11:48 AM


Re: Competition
ringo writes:

The value is the final price. It's what somebody actually pays. Cat's Eye paid less than the real value.

When is a price "final?"

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?

Then if someone buys the lumber rights for $200... is that $200 final?
What if the sale goes through, then the other neighbor purchases it for $300, is that the final price?
Then the first buyer buys it back again for $400. Now it's final?
How do you know if it's not going to be sold again tomorrow, or next week, or when near death?

Now CE's price wasn't final, or 50% off... but it was actually 75% off? Or maybe all purchases are an unknown non-final % off "real value" because we don't know when someone might want something and pay more for it? Therefore "value" can never be known?

What happens with the current owner sells the rights to his brother for $50 because he knows him? Now CE didn't pay the "real value" because he overpaid?

This seems like a definitional run-around just to not admit that, perhaps, value can increase/change without labor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ringo, posted 09-21-2017 11:48 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2017 1:25 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 09-21-2017 1:30 PM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13715
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 139 of 170 (820490)
09-21-2017 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by New Cat's Eye
09-21-2017 1:03 PM


New Cat's Eye writes:

You won't define your terms and you refuse to answer questions.


Be specific. if I've failed to answer ANYTHING, point it out specifically.

New Cat's Eye writes:

Until you define value and labor you're just having a toss.


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-21-2017 1:03 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11761
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 140 of 170 (820491)
09-21-2017 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Stile
09-21-2017 1:04 PM


Re: Competition
This seems like a definitional run-around just to not admit that, perhaps, value can increase/change without labor.

Bingo!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Stile, posted 09-21-2017 1:04 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13715
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 141 of 170 (820492)
09-21-2017 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Stile
09-21-2017 1:04 PM


Re: Competition
Stile writes:

When is a price "final?"


When the cash changes hands.

Stile writes:

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?


What the hell are you talking about?

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:

This seems like a definitional run-around just to not admit that, perhaps, value can increase/change without labor.


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 message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Stile, posted 09-21-2017 1:04 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Stile, posted 09-21-2017 1:41 PM ringo has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3006
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 142 of 170 (820493)
09-21-2017 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by ringo
09-21-2017 1:30 PM


Re: Competition
ringo 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.

What about when someone buys the rights to CE's lumber for $200, then the other neighbor buys it off that guy for $300?
Then the first guy buys it back for $400?
Then he sells it to his brother for $50?
And then a lady buys it off him for $75?

The rights of the lumber have changed hands... 5 times.
Each time the money was paid for the rights of the lumber.

No one has done any labor yet (the trees still stand).

Has the value for the rights to the lumber changed at all over this example?

I think that it increased, decreased, and then increased again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 09-21-2017 1:30 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Phat, posted 09-21-2017 2:49 PM Stile has responded
 Message 145 by ringo, posted 09-22-2017 11:37 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9881
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 143 of 170 (820499)
09-21-2017 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Stile
09-21-2017 1:41 PM


Re: Competition
stile writes:

What about when someone buys the rights to CE's lumber for $200, then the other neighbor buys it off that guy for $300?
Then the first guy buys it back for $400?
Then he sells it to his brother for $50?
And then a lady buys it off him for $75?

The rights of the lumber have changed hands... 5 times.
Each time the money was paid for the rights of the lumber.

No one has done any labor yet (the trees still stand).

Has the value for the rights to the lumber changed at all over this example?

I think that it increased, decreased, and then increased again?

I think that ringo is claiming that labor was initially required to give everyone enough value to make a trade or a purchase. In a depression, a guy might be willing to dig a ditch for $5.00 because he needs value in his pocket for food, etc.

If the value of a cashier shrunk from what I am getting paid to $5.00 an hour, ringo likely would cheer the rising tide in that now millions more can work, but the value would get tougher for me, since $5.00 wont buy me much of anything...trees, food, or fidgets.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Stile, posted 09-21-2017 1:41 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Stile, posted 09-21-2017 3:01 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3006
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 144 of 170 (820503)
09-21-2017 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Phat
09-21-2017 2:49 PM


Re: Competition
Phat writes:

I think that ringo is claiming that labor was initially required to give everyone enough value to make a trade or a purchase. In a depression, a guy might be willing to dig a ditch for $5.00 because he needs value in his pocket for food, etc.

For sure, I think that labor increasing value is one of the easiest or most-popular ways.

But even "initially" might be wrong.
Maybe in a depression a guy just gave another guy $5.00 because he was feeling charitable. No ditch needed to be dug.

Maybe the very first trade was a charitable one.

Maybe the very first value increase was when an ape-man saw a natural cave... but then another ape-man saw the same cave.
And a third saw the same cave as well.

The first was willing to walk over to it.
The second was willing to fight for it.
The third was willing to kill for it.

Nothing happened though... and the third ape-man got the cave.

The value of the cave just increased from "walking to it" up to "killing for it" with no labor happening.

My point is yes, you can think of all sorts of scenarios where value falls back on labor.
But, you can also think of all sorts of scenarios where value does not fall back on labor.

Or, at least, I'm pretty sure I can. I'm not really very economically-inclined. I find a lot of it too abstract for me. So I could easily be making some mistakes and not understanding the concepts well enough.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Phat, posted 09-21-2017 2:49 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by xongsmith, posted 10-04-2017 2:26 PM Stile has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13715
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 145 of 170 (820535)
09-22-2017 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Stile
09-21-2017 1:41 PM


Re: Competition
Stile writes:

No one has done any labor yet (the trees still stand).


Follow the money. Where did it come from?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Stile, posted 09-21-2017 1:41 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Phat, posted 10-04-2017 1:19 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9881
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 146 of 170 (821248)
10-04-2017 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by ringo
09-22-2017 11:37 AM


Re: Competition
ringo writes:

Follow the money. Where did it come from?

Trying to stay within our topic of the decline.

OK lets take the Great Depression. Everyone was out of work. Why couldnt they just start working and create more money through their labor?

Back then was deflation. Now its the opposite. Money has to keep moving to be of any value. Like you said, the hurricanes provide work for lots of labor. But the taxpayer pays. The social security future recipient pays. seems like we cant save anymore. We are always having to pay it forward.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by ringo, posted 09-22-2017 11:37 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by ringo, posted 10-04-2017 3:23 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1812
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 147 of 170 (821254)
10-04-2017 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Stile
09-21-2017 3:01 PM


Re: Competition
Stile writes:

The first was willing to walk over to it.
The second was willing to fight for it.
The third was willing to kill for it.

Nothing happened though... and the third ape-man got the cave.

The value of the cave just increased from "walking to it" up to "killing for it" with no labor happening.

Depending on how far walking over to it is, it could be exercise.
Certainly fighting over it is very labor intensive.
And enough to kill the others even more labor intensive.

Analogy Fail again on what is labor.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Stile, posted 09-21-2017 3:01 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Stile, posted 10-05-2017 9:20 AM xongsmith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13715
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 148 of 170 (821258)
10-04-2017 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Phat
10-04-2017 1:19 PM


Re: Competition
Phat writes:

OK lets take the Great Depression. Everyone was out of work. Why couldnt they just start working and create more money through their labor?


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.

My point is that all money involves work. That doesn't mean that all work involves money.

Phat writes:

Like you said, the hurricanes provide work for lots of labor. But the taxpayer pays.


And the worker IS the taxpayer.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Phat, posted 10-04-2017 1:19 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-04-2017 11:20 PM ringo has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11761
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 149 of 170 (821282)
10-04-2017 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by ringo
10-04-2017 3:23 PM


Re: Competition
My point is that all money involves work.

What ever happened to this point:

quote:
But the real "value" of something can only originate in labor,..

My original response stands, from Message 78:

How are you defining labor?

What about valuable natural resources?

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 (assuming you've already used some of your labor to acquire the money). On top of that, their value can increase in ways that don't originate in labor - like market fluctuations.

Now, turning the value of those natural resources into money is going to require work (that you could do yourself or pay for). But the natural resources have value in and of themselves that doesn't originate in labor. Like, Mother Nature did all the work for us or something.

In Message 42 you wrote:

Ownership is arbitrary.

and:

In fact, it's society that determines who owns what.

Society has determined that certain individuals own certain things, and that ownership is not arbitrary.

Say a man uses the fruits of his labor to purchase ownership of some property. And then he finds valuable resources on that property.

He risks some more of his money to purchase the labor of his friends to try to work those natural resources into even more value for himself (and his friends) that ends up being in the form of more money.

What's wrong with him paying himself for the risk he took to purchase that labor?

Your previous Message 40 is:

quote:
NoNukes writes:

On the other hand, the idea that labor creates all value is clearly bogus. Folks who take risks, and who lose money when things do not work out are folks who do contribute to value.


Isn't the money they risk also the fruit of human labor?

Not necessarily, tho generally yes. But, it could be the fruit of their own labor, that they could be risking for a profit.

If they don't take the risk, the laborers don't get the money. And the value sits with Mother Nature. Then everybody doesn't win.

There is value added in taking that risk with your money to gamble on labor by purchasing work to try to increase the value of your property.

You might say that the laborers could just own the land and work directly for the value of the resources. And I'd agree that they could, and wonder why they haven't, and ask you why you think they haven't used their money in the same way to create value without having to just do labor.

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. Otherwise, there's less labor being paid for and less value being created.

So anyways, going back further - you entered a discussion revolving around the Labor Class:

Who produced the value? (of the GDP)

Human Labor.

Spoken like a true member of the proletariat.
...

To which you replied with Message 40 as quote above. You really look like your arguing for Marxism - and that's fine, I'm just going to argue back. And you haven't really addressed my counterpoint yet.

There's nothing wrong with profiting off of human labor when you're risking your money to end up creating more valuable things. That risk taking is valuable and it deserves reward.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ringo, posted 10-04-2017 3:23 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 10-05-2017 12:02 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3006
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 150 of 170 (821292)
10-05-2017 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by xongsmith
10-04-2017 2:26 PM


Re: Competition
xongsmith writes:

Depending on how far walking over to it is, it could be exercise.
Certainly fighting over it is very labor intensive.
And enough to kill the others even more labor intensive.

Analogy Fail again on what is labor.

Did you read this part?

quote:
Nothing happened though... and the third ape-man got the cave.

Did the value not increase when no labor actually occurred?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by xongsmith, posted 10-04-2017 2:26 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017