Facebook Douche Renounces American Citizenship

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

What about bartering services for product? I barter meat for services. Who is the one allowed to charge full price, if you will?

 

the market would decide that. it would vary greatly. especially salient would be the market difference in a anarchist society and a capitalist one. i would imagine in a capitalist society the barter power would be greater with the capitalist. if you get to keep all the money and all you have to do is give out a few steaks, well, lets just say thats even worse. but it depends on the situation. my grandfather would barter carpentry work for plumming installation. its not very practical anymore. money has much more versatility. you cant put steaks in a bank...lol

 

this is why adam smith said money allowed people to get rich much easier generally speaking.

Edited June 4, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[Bronc24]

But what if he is bartering advice for some steaks? Who is the capitalist here? And who gets the best deal?

[DC Tom]

the market would decide that. it would vary greatly. especially salient would be the market difference in a anarchist society and a capitalist one. i would imagine in a capitalist society the barter power would be greater with the capitalist. if you get to keep all the money and all you have to do is give out a few steaks, well, lets just say thats even worse. but it depends on the situation. my grandfather would barter carpentry work for plumming installation. its not very practical anymore. money has much more versatility. you cant put steaks in a bank...lol

 

this is why adam smith said money allowed people to get rich much easier generally speaking.

 

 

The market decides value of labor in a barter system, but not in a monetary system?

 

You are well and truly !@#$ed in the head.

[Rob's House]

no, its only your mower because the state is protecting your theft.(yes you keep your mower dummy, but you dont get the extra mower or extra money after capital value is met.) e.g. if you decided to not buy more lawn mowers... you are contradicting yourself. you say its ok for you to own your mower but its not ok for labor to keep their money.

 

so you are a hypocrite. plus, YOU ARE NOT WORKING. ITS A WELFARE SYSTEM. harry is doing all the work... not only that, but the business could expand, and that expansion in this system would belong to you, creating a bigger and bigger gulf of unpaid labor and stolen property. pretty soon harry is not in charge of the lawn mowers he buys from his work and effort.

 

you believe in this utter myth that capital somehow represents your work even after other people expand beyond that value and are still not allowed to own their own surplus value. its a self refuting philosophy on what constitutes private property.

 

your other myth is that their is no coercion. this is a total fallacy beyond epic proportions...!

 

1- supply and demand logically entails coercion to some extent... there is a vast supply of unskilled labor that is always replaceable. its vast and low in demand. yet capital is finite in a capitalist system, ( because of this alienation of surplus value), and in high demand. the choice is have value stolen from you or starve.

2- the state takes vast amounts of wealth created from labor and uses it to protect the capitalist and his theft of labor.

3- neoliberalism has created incredibly cheap labor overseas that makes it hard to compete. the low prices from slave labor in a market create a system where its very hard generally speaking for small co-ops to stay in business and even have the ability to offer ethical wages.

4- whether it be cutting lawns, mcdonalds, walmart, burger king, security guard, etc, you cant just quit your job without suffering severe consequences potentially. you might not get hired right away, you might get evicted, you could lose good credit, hell, you might go with very little food and transportation... ill give you a perfect example. my dad was laid off. he was still getting unemployment and his military pension, but we still lost the house. and his credit went to ****... we got too far behind. and thats when he was laid off. he obviously would not just quit, even if things were very miserable. he would make sure he found a job making roughly the same amount before he just quit. ( and thats not easy, hell its probably not even realistic anymore if you dont have college.) he ended up taking this temp job for the past few years making 950 an hr. he was making 32 a hr. he cant find anything else making more than 10 a hr... this is obviously even way harder for people who make way less. my brother is the same. he has no college, ( cant afford it), and is making 10 a hr. if he just quit, he would lose his car and his credit would go to ****...

 

people are forced to put up with tons of bs and do not have free association because the state protects this system of exploitation and non labor income... its literally stolen wealth! again, there is a huge difference between desire, realistic desire, and limited choices against your consent... the biggest coercion is the threat of unemployment. nothing puts the fear of god more in a man with bills and a family then getting canned on friday.

 

im actually for people working to get unemployment. im for full employment if you are working... im also for the state helping people find private work while they are getting a temporary state job. yes, i know you cant have the salary to high because people would just keep that job forever. obviously there would be some limitations. if a job is available for sure on the private market, you will probably have to take it. the reason the capitalist class is against this is because full employment empowers workers tremendously. workers with the security of minimal employment would not put up with exploitation! but most of the large unemployment cycles are caused by the vast expansion of leverage by the fed and smaller banks. it was the major cause of our crisis in 08...

I don't think this was worthy of a dissertation, but whatever. Your theory is flawed on several grounds ( not the least of which is completely ignoring that Harry got to keep 3/4 of his earnings), but most importantly you seem to suffer from what I call "Loser's Dilema". This is characterized by an illogicalobsession with how hard one works rather than how much one produces. It's like the fast food worker performing unskilled labor & believing he's entitled to the bosses profits because he's doing all the work.

 

Problem is, his work is of little value. You can throw a dart into a crowd and hit someone who can do the job. The owner provides an ongoing service by continuing to operate the service which is exponentially more valuable to society than the kid flipping burgers. His service is essentially the same as labor, it just doesn't require as much physical assertion.

 

You also are failing to consider opportunity cost (what he could be doing with his resources were they not tied up in his current endeavor).

 

The part about when the capital is paid off is arbitrary as well. Procuring equipment and renting it out is labor. Why is one not allowed to profit from it? When Home Depot makes money by allowing me to use its tiller for a fraction of its cost because my need is temporary, thus giving me a substantial benefit, are they to cease charging once they get back their capital investment? And why is that value providing service not worthy of compensation?

 

And if in the hypo it's still my mower why can't I sell it? Obviously I can't keep the money b/c I've already gotten my money back and in this strange world you've described it is effort rather than production that is rewarded. And don't come back saying labor creates the production b/c I guarantee Harry's a lot more productive with my mower than with a pair of scissors.

 

And finally, you absurd argument attempting to redefine ownership by claiming any receipt of rent after the capital investment is paid off is legally protected theft doesn't work either if you give it any thought. You're basically saying that no one can ever sell anything for a profit. It's also arbitrary because since you are retaining ownership and the labor is the only thing of value, you could argue just as consistently that receiving rent for the use of capital before you got back the capital investment.

 

In short, you've concocted a scheme that gums up the gears providing less efficiency = less production = lower standard of living, all so that unskilled labor doesn't feel sad that the guy who channelled his energy into something productive gets a cut.

 

It's a system that seeks more equal outcomes by pulling some people down rather than lifting others up.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Rob's House

[Jauronimo]

If business owner's and shareholders were only entitled to earn a profit up until the point where initial capital was paid off, any owner with half a mind would just shutter the company at that point. Liquidate or sell. Why keep running a company, pushing 70-100 hours per week when you have no more upside to realize? And if I can only realize profit until initial capital is paid off, the balance between profit, costs and labor, as laid out by MDP, will be pretty slanted in the direction of profit. Either that, or through the miracle of modern accounting, any owner would make sure that initial capital was never paid off.

 

Now that we've addressed that problem, its time to figure out how we will be able to assign terminal values to all assets, or some type of value ceiling by which we can cap the evil of unlimited capital gains.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

I don't think this was worthy of a dissertation, but whatever. Your theory is flawed on several grounds ( not the least of which is completely ignoring that Harry got to keep 3/4 of his earnings), but most importantly you seem to suffer from what I call "Loser's Dilema".

This is characterized by an illogicalobsession with how hard one works rather than how much one produces.

It's like the fast food worker performing unskilled labor & believing he's entitled to the bosses profits because he's doing all the work.

 

Well, in theory all work is subjective given many circumstances. this is why generally speaking we let market demand influence this. i agree with this 95% of the time.

 

Problem is, his work is of little value. You can throw a dart into a crowd and hit someone who can do the job.

The owner provides an ongoing service by continuing to operate the service which is exponentially more valuable to society than the kid flipping burgers.

His service is essentially the same as labor, it just doesn't require as much physical assertion. again, after a given point, surplus value has created all capital. the only reason capital owners can still have hierarchy and keep surplus value is because of the state. the owner hasnt produced capital, and he doesnt work... its simply arbitrary authority backed by the state... e.g. the bar owner at the tavern i go to. i know him personally, he doesnt work and he doesnt even produce any of the capital anymore. so why is he getting paid???

 

You also are failing to consider opportunity cost (what he could be doing with his resources were they not tied up in his current endeavor).

 

The part about when the capital is paid off is arbitrary as well. Procuring equipment and renting it out is labor. Why is one not allowed to profit from it? When Home Depot makes money by allowing me to use its tiller for a fraction of its cost because my need is temporary, thus giving me a substantial benefit, are they to cease charging once they get back their capital investment? And why is that value providing service not worthy of compensation? i did say capital owners can profit. just like a loan. but when surplus value, ie money, or new capital forms from surplus value, it is 100% arbitrary and unjustified for the original capital owner to now own labors surplus value of money or new expansion of capital... like i said earlier, this theoretically would mean someone can make a one time investment and never work again. this entails that capital self replicates without use value creating new capital. in other words, its illogical, doesnt represent reality, and is just a distribution of income, its a power structure. mathematically speaking, like factual reality, the capital owner is giving permission to labor to use capital that is not his....

And if in the hypo it's still my mower why can't I sell it? Obviously I can't keep the money b/c I've already gotten my money back and in this strange world you've described it is effort rather than production that is rewarded. And don't come back saying labor creates the production b/c I guarantee Harry's a lot more productive with my mower than with a pair of scissors. the only reason harry is productive with your mower is because the state wont allow him to take his surplus value or new mower... in other words you are not productive, you are simply giving permission granted by the state that would not otherwise exist... telling people to do something doesnt do anything. people actually have to work... not only that, but you are taking his,(harry), surplus value and saying he cant use it for his or her own free will. thats not productivity, thats called stealing....

 

And finally, you absurd argument attempting to redefine ownership by claiming any receipt of rent after the capital investment is paid off is legally protected theft doesn't work either if you give it any thought. You're basically saying that no one can ever sell anything for a profit. It's also arbitrary because since you are retaining ownership and the labor is the only thing of value, you could argue just as consistently that receiving rent for the use of capital before you got back the capital investment. no, you can loan capital for profit. so original capital value plus interest. it should be treated like a bond... otherwise, you will create a class so wealthy and capital so much in the hands of the few, you will in essence create an oligarchy and a class of people who do nothing but get everything. the stratification in our world and in the west shows that to some major degree.

 

In short, you've concocted a scheme that gums up the gears providing less efficiency = less production = lower standard of living, all so that unskilled labor doesn't feel sad that the guy who channelled his energy into something productive gets a cut.

 

this is a classic argument among capitalists. the standard of living has been improved and to some degree way better than other systems. there are some major problems with this...

btw, this is not my idea, it is basic econ 101.......

 

1- we dont live in a capitalist system purely, we live in a system where capitalists receive incredible amounts of state intervention. so the success of the state in protecting big business has been a major reason why capitalists have had success and sustain success. they have the taxpayer...

2- the cold war and utter stupidity of the lenin state created great advantage for our markets in the world. investment always flowed to our capital. this is why the soviet union and cuba failed in a major way. when you block any form of profit, people will seek profit somewhere else. its just that simple...

3- you have not mentioned that the g20 controls the world bank, fed, and imf and those institutions are not democratic. this enslaves other nations through debt and also allows multinationals to exploit great resources out of other nations. whether it be autocratic states, or a nation with no say in the g20, this creates a massive disadvantage for them and great advantage for the U.S.

 

It's a system that seeks more equal outcomes by pulling some people down rather than lifting others up. its not a system of arbitrary equal outcomes. in fact, outcomes should not be equal. they should be based on what you work for and what the market says.

[Joe Miner]

MDP has to be Conner.

 

Well played Conner, well played.

[OCinBuffalo]

I think I have this figured out. (Long, funny, story as to how, but a tangent). The term "surplus value" that MDP espouses is a lame, made-up word....for wealth.

Wealth, as in owning the gold mine, rather than merely owning some gold.

 

The intent here is to have you be horrified, by somebody who intentionally sets out to create wealth....actually creating it. Rather than calling it what it is: wealth, they are trying to newspeak it into "surplus value".

 

We can always dispel ridiculousness like this with Ben and Jerry, which has the added benefit of countering leftist nonsense, with leftists. Do people spend 5x the price of other ice cream on Ben and Jerry's because of the value of their ice cream? Of course not. Even if we account for "ingredients" there's no way in hell the market supports that markup on that alone. People buy ice cream at that price because of the inherent value Ben and Jerry added to the brand - via the leftist nonsense printed on it. Fittingly, if you are dumb enough to pay $5+ for ice cream you can get for $1.50, you are dumb enough to buy into what's written on the label. The cycle of idiocy is completed by you buying more...since the label tells you that doing so means you are doing a good thing. Rewarding idiots for being idiotic is just as good as rewarding smart people for being smart.

 

Now, did Ben and Jerry get wealthy, oh, sorry, "surplus value"thy, from their ability to exploit labor, and cows, or from their ability to market expertly?

(I wonder what Ben and Jerry think about Michelle Obama and vice versa.)

 

Or, for every $1 of Pet Rock product sold, how much value did the labor add? The act of putting a rock in a box, along with assorted plastic utensils, and closing said box...maybe .01? Now, how much value did the "inventor" of the idea of putting a rock in a box and selling it to people add? Yeah...$0.99. The surplus value/wealth was created by the marketing genius who dreamed up the Pet Rock, not the box of rocks who puts the rock in the box.

 

Our next task to put an end to the box of rocks trying to tell us that wealth is actually..."surplus value"....and that labor is the only entity that can add value to a product.

Edited June 4, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[Wacka]

Ben & Jerry's cashed in when they sold the company to the international conglomerate Unilever.

[OCinBuffalo]

Ben & Jerry's cashed in when they sold the company to the international conglomerate Unilever.

Thereby screwing labor over in perpetuity. Now, did they sell their equity....their assets....or their liabilities....to Unilever? These things are all interchangeable of course, so you can sell any one of them to somebody for them to gain ownership of the company. But, they have to pay you in anti-dollars, so that there's no way labor gets screwed over by them getting surplus value in this deal. If they paid you in dollars, and the ice cream business does well, or they actually know how to run a company, then there's a good chance that surplus value will be created. However, whatever you sell them, it will turn into equity on the balance sheet, via the Clownasskins accounting treatment.

 

Of course there's the gross future value of assets to consider, and adjusting that for surplus value is always a challenge. That was the first thing we learned in our 4 month training program in the Big 6. That, along with correctly fixing value on the Spurper scale, making sure to account for the velocity and volume of each load, etc. The women always seemed to have a easier time with that.

 

Edit: And, while I'm sure that the pet rock guy was a genius, that would be nothing compared to whether he sold that business to Unilever.

Edited June 4, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

The market decides value of labor in a barter system,

but not in a monetary system?

You are well and truly !@#$ed in the head.

 

 

when did i say this. i have repeated over and over labor is susceptible to market forces in any system...

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

I think I have this figured out. (Long, funny, story as to how, but a tangent). The term "surplus value" that MDP espouses is a lame, made-up word....for wealth.

Wealth, as in owning the gold mine, rather than merely owning some gold.

 

The intent here is to have you be horrified, by somebody who intentionally sets out to create wealth....actually creating it. Rather than calling it what it is: wealth, they are trying to newspeak it into "surplus value".

 

We can always dispel ridiculousness like this with Ben and Jerry, which has the added benefit of countering leftist nonsense, with leftists. Do people spend 5x the price of other ice cream on Ben and Jerry's because of the value of their ice cream? Of course not. Even if we account for "ingredients" there's no way in hell the market supports that markup on that alone. People buy ice cream at that price because of the inherent value Ben and Jerry added to the brand - via the leftist nonsense printed on it. Fittingly, if you are dumb enough to pay $5+ for ice cream you can get for $1.50, you are dumb enough to buy into what's written on the label. The cycle of idiocy is completed by you buying more...since the label tells you that doing so means you are doing a good thing. Rewarding idiots for being idiotic is just as good as rewarding smart people for being smart.

 

Now, did Ben and Jerry get wealthy, oh, sorry, "surplus value"thy, from their ability to exploit labor, and cows, or from their ability to market expertly?

(I wonder what Ben and Jerry think about Michelle Obama and vice versa.)

 

Or, for every $1 of Pet Rock product sold, how much value did the labor add? The act of putting a rock in a box, along with assorted plastic utensils, and closing said box...maybe .01? Now, how much value did the "inventor" of the idea of putting a rock in a box and selling it to people add? Yeah...$0.99. The surplus value/wealth was created by the marketing genius who dreamed up the Pet Rock, not the box of rocks who puts the rock in the box.

 

Our next task to put an end to the box of rocks trying to tell us that wealth is actually..."surplus value"....and that labor is the only entity that can add value to a product.

 

 

 

all of this is irrelevant. markets have different use value for different things. so, a and w ice cream is a dollar. there is still surplus value. in fact, with ben and jerry, i think what you are getting at is that intellectual property can extend over surplus value. eg, i came up with this great idea on a new ice cream recipe so therefore i dont have to work ever again. this is utterly stupid. nothing about discovery gives you the right to own... " finders keepers"... ideas are of no value without labor, literally none... they just sit in your head. in some sense they are not really even a tangible form of capital because ideas can come from varrying factors. you might have got 2 parts of the recipe from your mother in law. and she might have got the idea from some random business owner years ago. in fact, this example is so pathetic because creating a ice cream recipe is a joke compared to much greater ideas. and even then, discovery does not mean you own or can exploit.

 

"One of the more common arguments in favour of profits is the notion that they are the result of innovation or entrepreneurial activity, that the creative spirit of the capitalist innovates profits into existence. This perspective is usually associated with the so-called "Austrian" school of capitalist economics but has become more common in the mainstream of economics, particularly since the 1970s.

 

"There are two related themes in this defence of profits -- innovation and entrepreneurial activity. While related, they differ in one key way. The former (associated with Joseph Schumpeter) is rooted in production while the former seeks to be of more general application. Both are based on the idea of "discovery", the subjective process by which people use their knowledge to identify gaps in the market, new products or services or new means of producing existing goods. When entrepreneurs discover, for example, a use of resources, they bring these resources into a new (economic) existence. Accordingly, they have created something ex nihilo (out of nothing) and therefore are entitled to the associated profit on generally accepted moral principle of "finders keepers."

 

Anarchists, needless to say, have some issues with such an analysis. The most obvious objection is that while "finders keepers" may be an acceptable ethical position on the playground, it is hardly a firm basis to justify an economic system marked by inequalities of liberty and wealth. Moreover, discovering something does not entitle you to an income from it. Take, for example, someone who discovers a flower in a wood. That, in itself, will generate no income of any kind. Unless the flower is picked and taken to a market, the discoverer cannot "profit" from discovering it. If the flower is left untouched then it is available for others to appropriate unless some means are used to stop them (such as guarding the flower). This means, of course, limiting the discovery potential of others, like the state enforcing copyright stops the independent discovery of the same idea, process or product.

 

As such, "discovery" is not sufficient to justify non-labour income as an idea remains an idea unless someone applies it. To generate an income (profit) from a discovery you need to somehow take it to the market and, under capitalism, this means getting funds to invest in machinery and workplaces. However, these in themselves do nothing and, consequently, workers need to be employed to produce the goods in question. If the costs of producing these goods is less than the market price, then a profit is made. Does this profit represent the initial "discovery"? Hardly for without funds the idea would have remained just that. Does the profit represent the contribution of "capital"? Hardly, for without the labour of the workers the workplace would have remained still and the product would have remained an idea.

 

Which brings us to the next obvious problem, namely that "entrepreneurial" activity becomes meaningless when divorced from owning capital. This is because any action which is taken to benefit an individual and involves "discovery" is considered entrepreneurial. Successfully looking for a better job? Your new wages are entrepreneurial profit. Indeed, successfully finding any job makes the wages entrepreneurial profit. Workers successfully organising and striking to improve their pay and conditions? An entrepreneurial act whose higher wages are, in fact, entrepreneurial profit. Selling your shares in one company and buying others? Any higher dividends are entrepreneurial profit. Not selling your shares? Likewise. What income flow could not be explained by "entrepreneurial" activity if we try hard enough?

 

In other words, the term becomes meaningless unless it is linked to owning capital and so any non-trivial notion of entrepreneurial activity requires private property, i.e. property which functions as capital. This can be seen from an analysis of whether entrepreneurship which is not linked to owning capital or land creates surplus value (profits) or not. It is possible, for example, that an entrepreneur can make a profit by buying cheap in one market and selling dear in another. However, this simply redistributes existing products and surplus value, it does not create them. This means that the entrepreneur does not create something from nothing, he takes something created by others and sells it at a higher price and so gains a slice of the surplus value created by others. If buying high and selling low was the cause of surplus value, then profits overall would be null as any gainer would be matched by a loser. Ironically, for all its talk of being concerned about process, this defence of entrepreneurial profits rests on the same a static vision of capitalism as does neo-classical economics.

 

Thus entrepreneurship is inherently related to inequalities in economic power, with those at the top of the market hierarchy having more ability to gain benefits of it than those at the bottom. Entrepreneurship, in other words, rather than an independent factor is rooted in social inequality. The larger one's property, the more able they are to gather and act on information advantages, i.e. act in as an entrepreneur. Moreover the ability to exercise the entrepreneurial spirit or innovate is restricted by the class system of capitalism. To implement a new idea, you need money. As it is extremely difficult for entrepreneurs to act on the opportunities they have observed without the ownership of property, so profits due to innovation simply becomes yet another reward for already being wealthy or, at best, being able to convince the wealthy to loan you money in the expectation of a return. Given that credit is unlikely to be forthcoming to those without collateral (and most working class people are asset-poor), entrepreneurs are almost always capitalists because of social inequality. Entrepreneurial opportunities are, therefore, not available to everyone and so it is inherently linked to private property (i.e. capital)."

 

 

This analysis presents a picture of capitalism more like it actually is rather than what economics would like it to be. However, this does not mean that its justification for profits is correct, far from it. Anarchists do agree that it is true that individuals do see new potential and act in innovative ways to create new products or processes. However, this is not the source of surplus value. This is because an innovation only becomes a source of profits once it actually produced, i.e. once workers have toiled to create it (in the case of new goods) or used it (in the case of new production techniques). An idea in and of itself produces nothing unless it is applied. The reason why profits result from innovation is due to the way the capitalist firm is organised rather than any inherent aspect of innovation.

 

 

We must also stress that innovation itself is a form of labour -- mental labour. Indeed, many companies have Research and Development groups in which workers are paid to generate new and innovative ideas for their employers. This means that innovation is not related to property ownership at all. In most modern industries, as Schumpeter himself acknowledged, innovation and technical progress is conducted by "teams of trained specialists, who turn out what is required and make it work in predictable ways" and so "ureau and committee work tends to replace individual action." This meant that "the leading man . . . is becoming just another office worker -- and one who is not always difficult to replace." [Op. Cit., p. 133] And we must also point out that many new innovations come from individuals who combine mental and physical labour outside of capitalist companies. Given this, it is difficult to argue that profits are the result of innovation of a few exceptional people rather than by workers when the innovations, as well as being worked or produced by workers are themselves are created by teams of workers.

 

As such, "innovation" and "entrepreneurialism" is not limited to a few great people but rather exists in all of us. While the few may currently monopolise "entrepreneurialism" for their own benefit, an economy does not need to work this way. Decision making need not be centralised in a few hands. Ordinary workers can manage their own productive activity, innovate and make decisions to meet social and individual needs (i.e. practice "entrepreneurialism"). This can be seen from various experiments in workers' control where increased equality within the workplace actually increases productivity and innovation. As these experiments show workers, when given the chance, can develop numerous "good ideas" and, equally as important, produce them. A capitalist with a "good idea," on the other hand, would be powerless to produce it without workers and it is this fact that shows that innovation, in and of itself, is not the source of surplus value.

--are profits the result of innovation, anarchist faq... ( ie intellectual property)

Edited June 5, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

of course, even with the copyright debate, none of this really matters or is applicable to basic forms of production. walmart is just walmart, mcdonalds is just mcdonalds, and kmart is just kmart. there is no great mathematical discovery here... its simple exploitation and theft of surplus value. a blue shirt is a !@#$ing blue shirt... plus as mentioned above, generally speaking, copyright laws hurt innovation, they do not help it. there is fair use, but that is all lawyer jargon and whoever has the most money will win in court...

Edited June 5, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

[OCinBuffalo]

all of this is irrelevant. markets have different use value for different things. so, a and w ice cream is a dollar. there is still surplus value. in fact, with ben and jerry, i think what you are getting at is that intellectual property can extend over surplus value. eg, i came up with this great idea on a new ice cream recipe so therefore i dont have to work ever again. this is utterly stupid. nothing about discovery gives you the right to own... " finders keepers"... ideas are of no value without labor, literally none... they just sit in your head. in some sense they are not really even a tangible form of capital because ideas can come from varrying factors. you might have got 2 parts of the recipe from your mother in law. and she might have got the idea from some random business owner years ago. in fact, this example is so pathetic because creating a ice cream recipe is a joke compared to much greater ideas. and even then, discovery does not mean you own or can exploit.

 

"One of the more common arguments in favour of profits is the notion that they are the result of innovation or entrepreneurial activity, that the creative spirit of the capitalist innovates profits into existence. This perspective is usually associated with the so-called "Austrian" school of capitalist economics but has become more common in the mainstream of economics, particularly since the 1970s.

 

"There are two related themes in this defence of profits -- innovation and entrepreneurial activity. While related, they differ in one key way. The former (associated with Joseph Schumpeter) is rooted in production while the former seeks to be of more general application. Both are based on the idea of "discovery", the subjective process by which people use their knowledge to identify gaps in the market, new products or services or new means of producing existing goods. When entrepreneurs discover, for example, a use of resources, they bring these resources into a new (economic) existence. Accordingly, they have created something ex nihilo (out of nothing) and therefore are entitled to the associated profit on generally accepted moral principle of "finders keepers."

 

Anarchists, needless to say, have some issues with such an analysis. The most obvious objection is that while "finders keepers" may be an acceptable ethical position on the playground, it is hardly a firm basis to justify an economic system marked by inequalities of liberty and wealth. Moreover, discovering something does not entitle you to an income from it. Take, for example, someone who discovers a flower in a wood. That, in itself, will generate no income of any kind. Unless the flower is picked and taken to a market, the discoverer cannot "profit" from discovering it. If the flower is left untouched then it is available for others to appropriate unless some means are used to stop them (such as guarding the flower). This means, of course, limiting the discovery potential of others, like the state enforcing copyright stops the independent discovery of the same idea, process or product.

 

As such, "discovery" is not sufficient to justify non-labour income as an idea remains an idea unless someone applies it. To generate an income (profit) from a discovery you need to somehow take it to the market and, under capitalism, this means getting funds to invest in machinery and workplaces. However, these in themselves do nothing and, consequently, workers need to be employed to produce the goods in question. If the costs of producing these goods is less than the market price, then a profit is made. Does this profit represent the initial "discovery"? Hardly for without funds the idea would have remained just that. Does the profit represent the contribution of "capital"? Hardly, for without the labour of the workers the workplace would have remained still and the product would have remained an idea.

 

Which brings us to the next obvious problem, namely that "entrepreneurial" activity becomes meaningless when divorced from owning capital. This is because any action which is taken to benefit an individual and involves "discovery" is considered entrepreneurial. Successfully looking for a better job? Your new wages are entrepreneurial profit. Indeed, successfully finding any job makes the wages entrepreneurial profit. Workers successfully organising and striking to improve their pay and conditions? An entrepreneurial act whose higher wages are, in fact, entrepreneurial profit. Selling your shares in one company and buying others? Any higher dividends are entrepreneurial profit. Not selling your shares? Likewise. What income flow could not be explained by "entrepreneurial" activity if we try hard enough?

 

In other words, the term becomes meaningless unless it is linked to owning capital and so any non-trivial notion of entrepreneurial activity requires private property, i.e. property which functions as capital. This can be seen from an analysis of whether entrepreneurship which is not linked to owning capital or land creates surplus value (profits) or not. It is possible, for example, that an entrepreneur can make a profit by buying cheap in one market and selling dear in another. However, this simply redistributes existing products and surplus value, it does not create them. This means that the entrepreneur does not create something from nothing, he takes something created by others and sells it at a higher price and so gains a slice of the surplus value created by others. If buying high and selling low was the cause of surplus value, then profits overall would be null as any gainer would be matched by a loser. Ironically, for all its talk of being concerned about process, this defence of entrepreneurial profits rests on the same a static vision of capitalism as does neo-classical economics.

 

Thus entrepreneurship is inherently related to inequalities in economic power, with those at the top of the market hierarchy having more ability to gain benefits of it than those at the bottom. Entrepreneurship, in other words, rather than an independent factor is rooted in social inequality. The larger one's property, the more able they are to gather and act on information advantages, i.e. act in as an entrepreneur. Moreover the ability to exercise the entrepreneurial spirit or innovate is restricted by the class system of capitalism. To implement a new idea, you need money. As it is extremely difficult for entrepreneurs to act on the opportunities they have observed without the ownership of property, so profits due to innovation simply becomes yet another reward for already being wealthy or, at best, being able to convince the wealthy to loan you money in the expectation of a return. Given that credit is unlikely to be forthcoming to those without collateral (and most working class people are asset-poor), entrepreneurs are almost always capitalists because of social inequality. Entrepreneurial opportunities are, therefore, not available to everyone and so it is inherently linked to private property (i.e. capital)."

 

 

This analysis presents a picture of capitalism more like it actually is rather than what economics would like it to be. However, this does not mean that its justification for profits is correct, far from it. Anarchists do agree that it is true that individuals do see new potential and act in innovative ways to create new products or processes. However, this is not the source of surplus value. This is because an innovation only becomes a source of profits once it actually produced, i.e. once workers have toiled to create it (in the case of new goods) or used it (in the case of new production techniques). An idea in and of itself produces nothing unless it is applied. The reason why profits result from innovation is due to the way the capitalist firm is organised rather than any inherent aspect of innovation.

 

 

We must also stress that innovation itself is a form of labour -- mental labour. Indeed, many companies have Research and Development groups in which workers are paid to generate new and innovative ideas for their employers. This means that innovation is not related to property ownership at all. In most modern industries, as Schumpeter himself acknowledged, innovation and technical progress is conducted by "teams of trained specialists, who turn out what is required and make it work in predictable ways" and so "ureau and committee work tends to replace individual action." This meant that "the leading man . . . is becoming just another office worker -- and one who is not always difficult to replace." [Op. Cit., p. 133] And we must also point out that many new innovations come from individuals who combine mental and physical labour outside of capitalist companies. Given this, it is difficult to argue that profits are the result of innovation of a few exceptional people rather than by workers when the innovations, as well as being worked or produced by workers are themselves are created by teams of workers.

 

As such, "innovation" and "entrepreneurialism" is not limited to a few great people but rather exists in all of us. While the few may currently monopolise "entrepreneurialism" for their own benefit, an economy does not need to work this way. Decision making need not be centralised in a few hands. Ordinary workers can manage their own productive activity, innovate and make decisions to meet social and individual needs (i.e. practice "entrepreneurialism"). This can be seen from various experiments in workers' control where increased equality within the workplace actually increases productivity and innovation. As these experiments show workers, when given the chance, can develop numerous "good ideas" and, equally as important, produce them. A capitalist with a "good idea," on the other hand, would be powerless to produce it without workers and it is this fact that shows that innovation, in and of itself, is not the source of surplus value.

--are profits the result of innovation, anarchist faq... ( ie intellectual property)

I am the living, breathing embodiment of people like you being completely full of schit in every way. That is because every aspect of my existence contradicts every argument that is listed above. I relish this status...up to the point that I know that if people like you ever gain power, you will have to kill me to prove that I don't exist. But remember, LABillz is first, because he is even worse for you than me. Ask him.

 

All your post proves: this is what happens when the weak/non-responsible/incapable express their opinion on business/economics. Christ, off the top of my head, there are at least 3 other posters on this board who need only exist as they are to prove the above to be patently false.

 

Learn this now: you can choose to be us, if you have the talent. Or, you can choose to be one more weak, non-responsible clown, that blames everyone else but themselves for their weakness and lack of ability. Hint: you'll be a lot happier if you can find a way to learn what you are good at, maximize that, know your limitations, make peace with them, and understand that while you may not be fully responsible for where you've been, you and only you are responsible for where you are going.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

I am the living, breathing embodiment of people like you being completely full of schit in every way. That is because every aspect of my existence contradicts every argument that is listed above. I relish this status...up to the point that I know that if people like you ever gain power, you will have to kill me to prove that I don't exist. But remember, LABillz is first, because he is even worse for you than me. Ask him.

 

All your post proves: this is what happens when the

weak/non-responsible/incapable express their opinion on business/economics.

Christ, off the top of my head, there are at least 3 other posters on this board who need only exist as they are to prove the above to be patently false.

 

Learn this now: you can choose to be us, if you have the talent.

Or, you can choose to be one more weak, non-responsible clown, that blames everyone else but themselves for their weakness and lack of ability.

Hint: you'll be a lot happier if you can find a way to learn what you are good at, maximize that, know your limitations, make peace with them, and understand that while you may not be fully responsible for where you've been, you and only you are responsible for where you are going.

 

lack of ability- lol, they are producing your product. what an arrogant view. you dont think people at apple are smart or have talent??? you dont think plummers and carpenters have talent, they produce nothing? you dont think the assembly line is hard work here in detroit???

 

 

wtf are you talking about? i have a good job, i work at my school and will graduate in 6 months. i am going to grad school after that... i was in the coast guard for 4 years. i did micro level business in the coast guard and now with my security manager job. i also coach football in the fall for my brothers former hs...

 

this is literally all ad hom and ignores the very basic and rightful request for workers power and having wealth belong to its rightful owner, ( the people that actually worked and produced things...)

[DC Tom]

this is literally all ad hom and ignores the very basic and rightful request for workers power and having wealth belong to its rightful owner, ( the people that actually worked and produced things...)

 

Says the bozo who cuts and pastes copyrighted material.

[Jauronimo]

Without the infinite wisdom of capitalists and their minions, labor would all follow one another off the nearest cliff like the talentless drooling lemmings they are. Capitalism is the purest form of compassion, providing you with the illusion that you are useful. Don't you feel useful, MDP? Truth is, you want me on that shop floor. No, you need me on that floor ruling you like a king.

[DC Tom]

Without the infinite wisdom of capitalists and their minions, labor would all follow one another off the nearest cliff like the talentless drooling lemmings they are.

 

 

*cough* Wisconsin recall *cough*

[OCinBuffalo]

lack of ability- lol, they are producing your product. what an arrogant view. you dont think people at apple are smart or have talent??? you dont think plummers and carpenters have talent, they produce nothing? you dont think the assembly line is hard work here in detroit???

Who is producing my product? Answer: I did. Past tense. There is no further need for development. That is because what I designed is perfect(and you thought my last was arrogant ) . That is not an opinion, that is a quantifiable fact. We have spent 0 time/money on improving the core, and have released 1(one) version, as designed. Quantifiable. So actually, it's not arrogant at all, it's the truth...tough schit if you don't like it.

 

I think people at Apple have lots of talent. That they exist, doesn't mean I don't. Your dopey article above says I can't exist. Yet, here I f'ing am.

 

I think most plumbers I have worked with and deployed software for, never mind met, have more talent than you. Yes, like your posts, it's the same thing over and over, but, at least they have to do it in different conditions with different constraints. Your work here is rarely your own, there...Mr. Cut and Paste. At least plumbers mostly do their own work.

 

Since I worked at the highest levels at GM(edit: if we are talking manufacturing in general, we can add Boeing, St. Gobain, and other smaller firms to that list), and the lowest, I know more about the existence of assembly line workers than you do, and I know more about what happens in the CEOs office too. I sure as hell know an idiot VP when I see one as well-->paying janitors $70 an hour, but only hiring a small amount of them, and working them like crazy/paying a lot of overtime, in an effort to avoid having to pay benefits(health care, pension, etc.) for additional janitors, because it looks like a good idea on paper, allows you to "prove" you "care about your people", and the union went along because they want the "look, we got $70/hr for a janitor" story....is idiotic. Especially when you keep turning them over, and/or they keep having accidents at work and at home.

 

But yeah, I don't know anything about an industry I've billed ~$40 million in, , according to you, an unmitigated moron.

wtf are you talking about? i have a good job, i work at my school and will graduate in 6 months. i am going to grad school after that... i was in the coast guard for 4 years. i did micro level business in the coast guard and now with my security manager job. i also coach football in the fall for my brothers former hs...

 

this is literally all ad hom and ignores the very basic and rightful request for workers power and having wealth belong to its rightful owner, ( the people that actually worked and produced things...)

Yes, and you also might be a good guy, be a good drinking buddy, somebody that's cool to work out with, have a hot girlfriend, or...who knows? a hot boyfriend. I don't doubt any of it. But, none of that is relevant to my point. None of that says you have the ability to conceive an original idea. None of that says you have the confidence, based on experience, to try to execute it, and the mental strength to stick through that process.

 

If you think that people like me don't exist, because some clown on a website, who has never even tried to be me says so, most likely because he lacks the ability, doesn't like that fact, and writes crap like this in a lame effort to avoid admitting it, then you're mentally weak for not seeing through it and/or considering the source. You may be a good guy, but you are still, mentally weak.

 

If you think that the only reason I have been able to take my original thinking, and apply it effectively, is because I exploited someone, then you are insulting me, but more importantly you are insulting the people I work with. On their behalf-->F you.

 

If you think that real entrepreneurship and innovation, and the real individuals, not always teams, who execute it, are a figment of imagination....then, I am a figment of imagination as well.

 

In an effort to address this, I have gone out of my way to insult you, and provide a specific, real-world basis for said insults, so that you are left with no doubt in your mind that I am as real as can be.

Edited June 5, 2012 by OCinBuffalo