|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9208 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,436 Year: 6,693/9,624 Month: 33/238 Week: 33/22 Day: 6/9 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Economics: How much is something worth? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
CS says:
I'd rather create some wealth for myself.
YIKES!!!! Shame on you for NOT rather wanting to create wealth for everybody.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You sure did make such an argument. Good. Now prove it.
You are both the owner of the capital and the investor of the capital. Why put both roles into the same person? It's easier to understand when there is one person who owns the capital (the means of production) and another who possesses the power to purchase those production means (the investor).
... evil capitalist bastard. Not the words I would use. In fact, you might notice that I've made no claim one way or the other regarding the ethics or morality of the system, other than to say it is unjust from the perspective of the laborerwho is responsible for all of the wealth creation yet only receives a fraction of it.
The investor would not exist were the capital necessary for the generation of wealth already in the hands of the laborers capable of generating wealth with it. I think they tried that in Russia and the rest of the eastern bloc. They try it everywhere. Anywhere a fisherman has free access to water for fishing, or an energy company free access to wind or sunlight for generating electricity, or a villager free access to forest wood for building boats, or a hunter free access to wildlife for harvesting meat, or... None of these producers need to take out loans to purchase the resources mentioned; and if their competitors had to take out a loan, they wouldn't be able to charge more for the productthey'd just have less wealth in their pocket at the end of the day. Ownership generates precisely zero wealth.
Making capital available for economic investment is the way capitalism works. No it's not. Holding the capital hostage until laborers capable of wealth creation pay your demanded ransom is the way Capitalism works. It's even the first thing Wikipedia will tell you (which means it must be pretty essential, since Wikipedia articles usually don't start getting bogus until the third or fourth sentence in):
quote: It's owning capital. Holding it close. Keeping it for yourself. It's not making it availableit's the exact opposite of what you describe it to be! Capital is even in the name. Capital is present in every economic system. Not every economic system is Capitalism.
Face it, you're just an anti-capitalist. Because I can describe the situation as it is? C'mon! Shouting accusations of being an 'anti-capitalist' (as if that were even a bad thing) is just you grasping at straws. Don't go down that road. Please. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
What is the point of considering some idealistic fantasy? Apparently it is just a fantasy. That's what you and Percy keep claiming. Despite economic systems all around the world functioning in such a way... It's just a fantasy.
Its really easy to just clock in and make widgets all day and then clock out and go home and not have to worry about any of the things that are actually associated with generating wealth. Oh brother! And it's me that's 'nave'
Its an analogy, Jon. Analogy for what?
Face it, Jon, either your a grunt who's pissed that he didn't get a bigger piece of the pie so your demonizing those who were more capable than you Ahh yes. All them poor people. If only they had been more capable! Get real. You're ridiculous. There's no point talking to you. A black man has more chance of talking sense into a Klan leader than anyone has of talking sense into you. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18635 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2
|
Jon writes: People with money are under no obligation to loan it out. If they didnt, what would be used to start businesses?
The loan holder deserves compensation simply because he is capable of demanding it and the enforcing agencies in power support his cause. There's still this thing about wealth creation, though. As a grocery laborer, I allow the wealth to be created by moving the line along and getting people to pay up and go home.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
People with money are under no obligation to loan it out. If they didnt, what would be used to start businesses? Read the rest of the thread.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18635 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2
|
Jon writes: And yet you say that a laborer such as I that organizes so as to receive a bigger fraction is "entitled" and "greedy" at best, unimportant for wealth creation at worst. The evil capitalists pay pittance wages precisely for this reason. You are attacking the wrong economic class, in my opinion. You need to form an alliance with the middle class against the rich, not attack the middle class itself.
I've made no claim one way or the other regarding the ethics or morality of the system, other than to say it is unjust from the perspective of the laborerwho is responsible for all of the wealth creation yet only receives a fraction of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
And yet you say that a laborer such as I that organizes so as to receive a bigger fraction is "entitled" and "greedy" at best, unimportant for wealth creation at worst. The evil capitalists pay pittance wages precisely for this reason. You are attacking the wrong economic class, in my opinion. You need to form an alliance with the middle class against the rich, not attack the middle class itself. Did you even read what you were responding to? Did the word 'entitled' or 'greedy' appear anywhere? Did I call a laborer "unimportant for wealth creation" or did I say the "laborer ... is responsible for all of the wealth creation"? What class am I attacking? Where have I formed alliances? When did I attack the middle class? And lastly: are you even literate? JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2620 From: massachusetts US Joined: |
LOL!!!
- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18635 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2
|
What class am I attacking? Where have I formed alliances? When did I attack the middle class? And yet aside from telling everyone that they dont understand, you yourself offer no concrete plan or solution to the status quo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22937 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
Jon writes: In fact, you might notice that I've made no claim one way or the other regarding the ethics or morality of the system... Really? Here for everyone's edification and enjoyment, Jon's thoughts on capitalism that make no moral judgments:
Holding the capital hostage until laborers capable of wealth creation pay your demanded ransom is the way Capitalism works. ... The system of 'investing' is only necessary because the means of production are owned by people incapable of using them for the generation of wealth. Why keep these noncontributing layabouts around?... Is a thief an okay guy if he enters the family heirlooms he stole from your house on his income ledger? Of course not!... Thus the only role filled by owners and investors is that of hijacker: they hold hostage the resources that real wealth creators use to create wealth. I could go on, but why bother. You liken capitalists to hijackers, thieves, hostage takers and layabouts, but you're not making any moral judgments.
Jon in Message 291 writes: Obviously the availability of capital is essential to the creation of wealth. But you aren't talking about the availability of capital. You're talking about the unavailability of capital. Someone else owns the land that the farmer needs for generating wealth, and this makes that capital unavailable. Afterall, the capital was available since the beginning of time, until someone stuck a sign in the ground and mustered forces to ensure that the capital remained unavailable to anyone unwilling to give to the 'owner' of that capital his demanded compensation. Jon, face it, you're a communist. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Jon writes: Holding the capital hostage until laborers capable of wealth creation pay your demanded ransom is the way Capitalism works.... The system of 'investing' is only necessary because the means of production are owned by people incapable of using them for the generation of wealth. Why keep these noncontributing layabouts around?... Is a thief an okay guy if he enters the family heirlooms he stole from your house on his income ledger? Of course not!... Thus the only role filled by owners and investors is that of hijacker: they hold hostage the resources that real wealth creators use to create wealth. It's an honest description that accurately describes the roles of the characters involved. It is not meant to be judgemental or accusatory. For the most part, I have no problem with the capitalist system. It shouldn't be used for things like health care, education, and so on. But it's actually an alright system for a lot of things. Owners of capital are still hijackers though. And the capital they own is their hostage. I own capital. I'm a hijacker. I have hostages. I can admit it without hating myself. Can you?
Jon, face it, you're a communist. Very strange. I've actually made nary a reference to anything even remotely communistic at all. All of my statements have been observations about Capitalism, from my description of the characters to my explanation of their roles. It's all been about Capitalism. But since you've nothing left to offer to the argument other than silly accusations of me being a communist or anti-capitalist (as if that's even relevant or a bad thing), I suppose there's little point in us continuing. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
And yet aside from telling everyone that they dont understand, you yourself offer no concrete plan or solution to the status quo. Listen, Phat. If you want to reply to my posts, then at least have the decency to bother reading them. If you cannot even accurately portray the part of my posts that you quote, don't expect me to waste time responding to any of the rubbish you have to say. I don't have time to discuss with someone who is arguing against me about something I never even said.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22937 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Jon writes: It's an honest description that accurately describes the roles of the characters involved. It is not meant to be judgemental or accusatory. My gosh, such sincerity. Since we're done with capitalism why don't we move on to irony. Here's the first sentence of the entire thread:
Percy in Message 1 writes: In economics the question "How much is something worth?" has a simple answer: what someone is willing to pay. And here's you after arguing for who knows how many posts:
Jon in Message 264 writes: First, value determines willingness to pay (WTP), willingness to pay determines how much a firm can charge for its goods or services. Priceless! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Percy in Message 1 writes: In economics the question "How much is something worth?" has a simple answer: what someone is willing to pay. And here's you after arguing for who knows how many posts:
Jon in Message 264 writes: First, value determines willingness to pay (WTP), willingness to pay determines how much a firm can charge for its goods or services. Priceless! Of course what you said in message 1 is not the same thing as what I said in message 264. Read closely: value determines willingness to pay. It does not say: value equals willingness to pay. And if I ever made any comment similar to that second one, it was most certainly in error. To better understand how I view the relationship between value and WTP, just read my posts. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22937 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
Hi Jon,
I appreciate that you're trying to put a fine point on your position, but in Message 1 I wasn't trying to put a fine point on mine. I wasn't trying to distill the several ideas about how best to think about value from within neoclassical economics. Your perspective on value fits right in with neoclassical ideas and I have no problem with it, but none of these ideas are without their problems. That's why there are debates about value even within mainstream economic circles. The opening post was intended primarily as a counterpoint to the ideas from a predecessor thread that a book containing an idea that earns $100,000 is worth a $100,000, or that value means what someone would pay were you to threaten to take it away. These views are clearly outside the neoclassical perspective that is the dominant paradigm within mainstream economics today. Let me address one of the problems with your position that price doesn't influence value. Someone who doesn't shop much might not know the value of a bag of peas, but it wouldn't be very hard to find out. He would go to several supermarkets and check prices, and that's how his impression of value would be established. If you need to know the value of something rare like a flintlock from the early 1800s then you need someone who knows the prices at which such rare items change hands (an expert for lack of a better name), and it is those prices that determine value. But it is still people's willingness to pay various amounts that is used to determine value. Technical definitions involving marginal utility and so forth have analytical value because they can be plugged into equations and used in economic models, but people aren't usually very analytical about purchasing decisions until the prices get interesting. In most day-to-day life very little thinking goes into purchasing decisions. I need gas to get to work, so whatever the price of gas is today, that's what I pay. Analytical economists can claim that the price I paid exceeded the value I assigned, but nothing like that was going on in my head, and when they do studies of actual purchasing behavior they find that such simplistic models, convenient as they are, only capture part of what is really going on. For instance, one of the interesting effects of price is that it can be seen as an indicator of quality. For some goods increasing price can actually increase sales. Go to the pain reliever aisle of any pharmacy and watch for an hour. Some people will choose the name brand, some the store brand, of the various pain relievers. The pain killer is the same, but marketing has influenced perceptions of quality and maybe safety, too, and have affected perceptions of value and consequent purchasing decisions. I think the biggest problem we've had in this thread is an insistence that one's position is correct to the exclusion of any other position, no matter how minor the differences might be. The fact of the matter is that within mainstream economics price and value are closely related, but once you get into the details there is a great deal to discuss. I wish we could have had a more enlightening discussion. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024