Jauronimo Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 tom, you just repeated what i said. " you would be a dick to charge interest on a paint brush", pointing out the example was not salient.... its not my fault you dont understand surplus value, an empirical fact of use value... The only thing factual about your precious surplus value concept is that at some point, assuming that currency and asset values remain constant through time, that value derived from an investment may exceed the initial investment. Assigning a moral value on surplus value, another sign that you lack the language necessary to discuss any financial or economic topic, is where the disconnect lies. You've taken this empirical fact and drawn all sorts of ridiculous conclusions. You may regurgitate Das Kapital till your hearts content, but don't expect to be taken seriously until you can begin addressing the glaring holes in Marxist theory with something more than just copying and pasting the same BS with added emoticons. If you're really interested in being taken seriously you can also start capitalizing, stop emboldening and underlining, quit with the barrage of emoticons and toss in the occasional complete sentence, ie: highschool level writing. Oh, and drop the constant ie's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ read this, along with emma goldman, michael albert, and then after all that, read the communist manifesto. then, maybe then, you will understand what exploitation is along with the contradiction and crisis in capitalism... Yes, we know. You're an anarchist. We're not arguing about the tenets of anarchism - we're arguing about your complete understanding of the definition of basic words like "capital" or "interest". interest actually comes from the time value theory of money or theory of waiting... and i said different forms of lending have different forms of risk... and i argued that labor also takes great risk... Yes, but you specifically said that lending money carries no risk for the lender. Then said that lending assets carries no risk for the lender. And say that money's made up. (Unless it's "created by labor" - you can't even define "money" properly. ) And now you're saying that interest is based on the "time value theory" of money, which 1) is not a definition of "interest", and 2) demonstrates that paying "interest" on a paintbrush still makes no goddamn sense! Is there some "time value theory" of paintbrushes we haven't heard of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 The only thing factual about your precious surplus value concept is that at some point, assuming that currency and asset values remain constant through time, that value derived from an investment may exceed the initial investment. Assigning a moral value on surplus value, another sign that you lack the language necessary to discuss any financial or economic topic, is where the disconnect lies. You've taken this empirical fact and drawn all sorts of ridiculous conclusions. You may regurgitate Das Kapital till your hearts content, but don't expect to be taken seriously until you can begin addressing the glaring holes in Marxist theory with something more than just copying and pasting the same BS with added emoticons. If you're really interested in being taken seriously you can also start capitalizing, stop emboldening and underlining, quit with the barrage of emoticons and toss in the occasional complete sentence, ie: highschool level writing. Oh, and drop the constant ie's. ad hom yes, it is a moral value, that people should not take what they do not work for. like you said, holding value relatively constant, raw materials are worth raw materials. the profit is generated from use value. if you want a system that exploits, just admit it. stop the bs. im all for profit, im all for soft regulation on markets, im all for working hard, i really like john locke. but im not for people sitting back and getting rich doing nothing. all the capital, wages, profits, overhead are being created by labor, so why cant they own it? its a massive contradiction that says person a can own capital, yet workers cannot own the capital they create. Yes, we know. You're an anarchist. We're not arguing about the tenets of anarchism - we're arguing about your complete understanding of the definition of basic words like "capital" or "interest". Yes, but you specifically said that lending money carries no risk for the lender. Then said that lending assets carries no risk for the lender. And say that money's made up. (Unless it's "created by labor" - you can't even define "money" properly. ) And now you're saying that interest is based on the "time value theory" of money, which 1) is not a definition of "interest", and 2) demonstrates that paying "interest" on a paintbrush still makes no goddamn sense! Is there some "time value theory" of paintbrushes we haven't heard of? i said lending carries no risk once surplus value creates the new capital... money that is simply printed with no foundation is made up. it only has legal tender from the state, in reality its worth nothing. a better definition of money is a promissory note. the fed does this all the time with other private banks and the govt... interest comes from time value, any economist will tell you this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 ad hom yes, it is a moral value, that people should not take what they do not work for. like you said, holding value relatively constant, raw materials are worth raw materials. the profit is generated from use value. if you want a system that exploits, just admit it. stop the bs. im all for profit, im all for soft regulation on markets, im all for working hard, i really like john locke. but im not for people sitting back and getting rich doing nothing. all the capital, wages, profits, overhead are being created by labor, so why cant they own it? its a massive contradiction that says person a can own capital, yet workers cannot own the capital they create. Thats your own ridiculous assumption. While some trust fund babies may fit in that category, what percentage of the reviled and ever changing 1% got there by doing nothing? The working man can indeed own all the capital they please. They only need to put their ass on the line and go into business for themselves. Spare me the Walmart lecture, because economies of scale and cost of capital are not indicative of a rigged system. If you try to compete on cost basis with an international conglomerate then you deserve all that comes your way. Turning the bolt generates very little value, and in it of itself, no profit. To borrow one of your asinine examples, take that hammer that you made and put it on a shelf in front yard and see how much profit you realize from your labor. Real value comes from those who design the product, implement production processes, establish and execute a sound business model, and properly brand and market the product. If labor were inherently profitable, no company would ever go out of business. Face it, you want a free ride. You want to share in the outsized profit when times are good, but when the business misses earnings you're not willing to take a bath. You're all for markets yet you're disgusted with the market value of labor. And you can spare me part where you go on about labor assuming all of the risk, as well. It is not in the best interest of any organization to engage in constant fire and hire, as the cost of hiring and training is very high. Labor trades their share of ownership for predictable and steady income, which allows them to live more comfortably and plan long-term. Its a trade-off that is more than fair. When you have a salary and defined benefits, the firm assumes all business risk. They are on the hook for your wage no matter how many of the units you've produced can actually be sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) Thats your own ridiculous assumption. While some trust fund babies may fit in that category, what percentage of the reviled and ever changing 1% got there by doing nothing? The working man can indeed own all the capital they please. They only need to put their ass on the line and go into business for themselves. Spare me the Walmart lecture, because economies of scale and cost of capital are not indicative of a rigged system. If you try to compete on cost basis with an international conglomerate then you deserve all that comes your way. Turning the bolt generates very little value, and in it of itself, no profit. To borrow one of your asinine examples, take that hammer that you made and put it on a shelf in front yard and see how much profit you realize from your labor. Real value comes from those who design the product, implement production processes, establish and execute a sound business model, and properly brand and market the product. If labor were inherently profitable, no company would ever go out of business. Face it, you want a free ride. You want to share in the outsized profit when times are good, but when the business misses earnings you're not willing to take a bath. You're all for markets yet you're disgusted with the market value of labor. And you can spare me part where you go on about labor assuming all of the risk, as well. It is not in the best interest of any organization to engage in constant fire and hire, as the cost of hiring and training is very high. Labor trades their share of ownership for predictable and steady income, which allows them to live more comfortably and plan long-term. Its a trade-off that is more than fair. When you have a salary and defined benefits, the firm assumes all business risk. They are on the hook for your wage no matter how many of the units you've produced can actually be sold. wow.... that is labor, im talking about capital hierarchy without labor. some labor has more value... talent and effort is one reason... wow, just wow.... Edited June 11, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 wow.... that is labor, im talking about capital hierarchy without labor. some labor has more value... talent and effort is one reason... wow, just wow.... It wasn't what you were talking about earlier in this thread when management and anyone with any equity stake was the enemy, remember? Because they just sit back and get rich while labor toils. Most C-level officers have ownership stakes or substantial equity compensation. Wow indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 It wasn't what you were talking about earlier in this thread when management and anyone with any equity stake or an interest-bearing hammer was the enemy, remember? Because they just sit back and get rich while labor toils. Most C-level officers have ownership stakes or substantial equity compensation. Wow indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Bravo Combo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) It wasn't what you were talking about earlier in this thread when management and anyone with any equity stake was the enemy, remember? Because they just sit back and get rich while labor toils. Most C-level officers have ownership stakes or substantial equity compensation. Wow indeed. no, i was talking about unjustified authority, then you went on some batshit notion that mental effort like marketing strategy was not labor... yes, ownership over capital they did not create.... its unjustified hierarchy. how does one have an equity stake when they are not creating capital anymore??? i said management that was without reason, was arbitrary and not needed. Edited June 12, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) no, i was talking about unjustified authority, then you went on some batshit notion that mental effort like marketing strategy was not labor... yes, ownership over capital they did not create.... its unjustified hierarchy. how does one have an equity stake when they are not creating capital anymore??? i said management that was without reason, was arbitrary and not needed. No, I never said that. I didn't say any of that. All I have been saying this whole time is that a hammer alone cannot bear interest. Yes, a hummingbird is legal tender, ie: fiat, ie: birdlaw You cannot own a bird without special expertise or consent, otherwise its exploitation, ie: surplus interest. Edited June 12, 2012 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) No, I never said that. I didn't say any of that. All I have been saying this whole time is that a hammer alone cannot bear interest. Yes, a hummingbird is legal tender, ie: fiat, ie: birdlaw You cannot own a bird without special expertise or consent, otherwise its exploitation, ie: surplus interest. imbucile, the hammer is meant as a metaphor to illustrate on a microlevel what happens when use value is added... e.g. wood, hammer, and nails is worth 50$. the table now created is worth 200$... if it was just you, your labor mental and physical added 150$ of value... your labor created new capital... Edited June 12, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 imbucile, the hammer is meant as a metaphor to illustrate on a microlevel what happens when use value is added... e.g. wood, hammer, and nails is worth 50$. the table now created is worth 200$... if it was just you, your labor mental and physical added 150$ of value... your labor created new capital... You'll have to define that one for me. You clearly don't get it. So, I'll try again. If I have 10 acres of land and on my land I can plant 10,000 bushels of corn and 5,000 bushels of wheat, but the land just sits there then it follows that capital is not productive. In other words, if I were to take out a risk free loan and realize my dreams of starting up an international discount retailer, and I buy metal, machines and tools for a lump sum of $100 but I sell bikes for $1,2000, then I have exploited myself to the tune of $1,100. :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) Face it, you want a free ride. You want to share in the outsized profit when times are good, but when the business misses earnings you're not willing to take a bath. You're all for markets yet you're disgusted with the market value of labor. And you can spare me part where you go on about labor assuming all of the risk, as well. It is not in the best interest of any organization to engage in constant fire and hire, as the cost of hiring and training is very high. Labor trades their share of ownership for predictable and steady income, which allows them to live more comfortably and plan long-term. Its a trade-off that is more than fair. When you have a salary and defined benefits, the firm assumes all business risk. They are on the hook for your wage no matter how many of the units you've produced can actually be sold. wow.... that is labor, im talking about capital hierarchy without labor. some labor has more value... talent and effort is one reason... wow, just wow.... Yes, J-mo is the idiot here. He just poked 2 holes in Marxism you can't plug. That's because, like with my sales guy hole, your...misguided(I'm feeling nice)...assumption is that all labor is the same. It is not. You cannot macroeconomically define labor...and have that definition hold up in the real world. And that is the real fallacy here. 10% "interest" on your labor, is worth a lot less than 10% on mine. I guarantee it. Labor is not a homogenous commodity any more than management, or ownership is. Proof: Who would you rather have as an owner of the Bills? Dan Snyder(Redskins), or Bob Kraft(Patriots)? Does Bob's team have to suffer because of the idiot decisions made by Dan? No, and that is as it must be. Treating the 3 as though they are the same every time and always will be in every respect, merely betrays the childlike simplicity with which Marx and Engels treated economics, government, and human beings in general. Human beings aren't worse or better than these simplified assumptions. They are simply more complicated than these assumptions allow. And, therefore, more complicated at a granular level, than a "one-size-fits-all" centralized system will allow. What if both Dan and Bob are sitting on a government health care committee, that makes all those decisions, and their votes count the same? In your childish world, all of us, including Bob, have to suffer the Dan Snyder Idiot consequences. Bob gets blamed for Dan's incompetence, and can't do what he knows is right because of it? That's not fair to anybody, including Dan. Dan will never learn from his mistakes. "But..but...but" that is, by definition, your DEMOCRATIC..."solution" in action...is it not? Moron If we can't even assume that owners are the same...how in the hell is management the same? Look. At. The. Bills. Now. Idiot. And, for labor, is Donte Whitner the same as George Wilson? For you to be right, they must be. They are not, and therefore, you must be wrong. Unfortunately, it took the rise and fall of these childish ideas, with incalculable costs = more deaths than religion has caused, to prove that they are fundamentally flawed. Edited June 12, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) You'll have to define that one for me. You clearly don't get it. So, I'll try again. If I have 10 acres of land and on my land I can plant 10,000 bushels of corn and 5,000 bushels of wheat, but the land just sits there then it follows that capital is not productive. In other words, if I were to take out a risk free loan and realize my dreams of starting up an international discount retailer, and I buy metal, machines and tools for a lump sum of $100 but I sell bikes for $1,2000, then I have exploited myself to the tune of $1,100. :wallbash: if you are working, then how is there exploitation? you are working and creating wealth... if you own a farm, and you are the only worker, then obviously nobody is exploited. wealth belongs to those who create it... Yes, J-mo is the idiot here. He just poked 2 holes in Marxism you can't plug. That's because, like with my sales guy hole, your...misguided(I'm feeling nice)...assumption is that all labor is the same. It is not. You cannot macroeconomically define labor...and have that definition hold up in the real world. And that is the real fallacy here. 10% "interest" on your labor, is worth a lot less than 10% on mine. I guarantee it. i already gave you an example of the car lot with nobody there. this fundamentally disproves your point. Labor is not a homogenous commodity any more than management, or ownership is. Proof: Who would you rather have as an owner of the Bills? Dan Snyder(Redskins), or Bob Kraft(Patriots)? Does Bob's team have to suffer because of the idiot decisions made by Dan? No, and that is as it must be. Treating the 3 as though they are the same every time and always will be in every respect, merely betrays the childlike simplicity with which Marx and Engels treated economics, government, and human beings in general. Human beings aren't worse or better than these simplified assumptions. They are simply more complicated than these assumptions allow. And, therefore, more complicated at a granular level, than a "one-size-fits-all" centralized system will allow. What if both Dan and Bob are sitting on a government health care committee, that makes all those decisions, and their votes count the same? In your childish world, all of us, including Bob, have to suffer the Dan Snyder Idiot consequences. Bob gets blamed for Dan's incompetence, and can't do what he knows is right because of it? That's not fair to anybody, including Dan. Dan will never learn from his mistakes. "But..but...but" that is, by definition, your DEMOCRATIC..."solution" in action...is it not? Moron If we can't even assume that owners are the same...how in the hell is management the same? Look. At. The. Bills. Now. Idiot. And, for labor, is Donte Whitner the same as George Wilson? For you to be right, they must be. They are not, and therefore, you must be wrong. Unfortunately, it took the rise and fall of these childish ideas, with incalculable costs = more deaths than religion has caused, to prove that they are fundamentally flawed. wow, when your argument fails, you begin to put words in my mouth and state opinions that are not mine but claim they are... a classic strawman technique to confuse others... yes, labor is not the same. in fact use value can change depending on labor. less talent, laziness, a person quits, etc. etc. i already stated this. labor is different in talent, effort, and the circumstance of market demand. all i said was when use value, ie profit, overtakes capital, labor is creating all the new capital, and they should own it because they are creating it, they worked for it. i have said multiple times, i believe in markets, and if a co-op could use a better worker for a legit circumstance, then this should be allowed. even if it were democratic, or had reps, they will obviously go through resumes and pick the most qualified person. otherwise the company will suffer... wow... Edited June 12, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 wow indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 wow indeed. They fight, they bite, They bite and fight and bite, Fight fight fight, bite bite bite, The Itchy & Scratchy Show! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 wow, when your argument fails, you begin to put words in my mouth and state opinions that are not mine but claim they are... a classic strawman technique to confuse others... Nothing you've posted is your words. You're copying **** from anarchists web sites that you don't even understand, you !@#$tard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Nothing you've posted is your words. You're copying **** from anarchists web sites that you don't even understand, you !@#$tard. Starve the troll! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Nothing you've posted is your words. You're copying **** from anarchists web sites that you don't even understand, you !@#$tard. again, more ad hom... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts