Jauronimo Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 no, risk does not justify profits... yes there is risk, for capital and labor, but mostly labor, and only labor after a certain point... see surplus value Please describe how exactly Wal Mart is levering up with cheap labor and what you think those words mean. After we've had that laugh, show me one credible source on the topic of economic theory written post 1900 where the term "surplus value" is even mentioned. You can cling to Das Kapital, but that ship sunk well over 100 years ago. Repeating "surplus value" ad nauseam does not change the fact that Marxism has been exposed in practice and almost entirely discredited. Furthermore, what the hell does that response have at all to do with lending risk and how in the world have you even attempted to seriously respond to my last post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Except, as I already pointed out, Hitler didn't invade Spain, and there was no anarchist uprising. You are one dumb mother!@#$er. except that there was in the 1930s and hitler did invade to help the nationalists... Please describe how exactly Wal Mart is levering up with cheap labor and what you think those words mean. After we've had that laugh, show me one credible source on the topic of economic theory written post 1900 where the term "surplus value" is even mentioned. You can cling to Das Kapital, but that ship sunk well over 100 years ago. Repeating "surplus value" ad nauseam does not change the fact that Marxism has been exposed in practice and almost entirely discredited. Furthermore, what the hell does that response have at all to do with lending risk and how in the world have you even attempted to seriously respond to my last post? take a single person... say he has a 100$... and then buys **** to build a bike. when the bike is complete its worth say 400$... the capital is obviously worth 100, the use value or labor is worth 300... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 except that there was in the 1930s and hitler did invade to help the nationalists... take a single person... say he has a 100$... and then buys **** to build a bike. when the bike is complete its worth say 400$... the capital is obviously worth 100, the use value or labor is worth 300... What about the building that the bike was built in? or the tools and electricity the assembler used? The value of labor is only worth what you can hire an assembler for. If I want to pay an assembler $7.50 and the first applicant wants $8 but the guy behind him will do the same quality of work for the $7.50 the second guy gets the job. The end product value does not drive the pay of the worker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) What about the building that the bike was built in? or the tools and electricity the assembler used? The value of labor is only worth what you can hire an assembler for. If I want to pay an assembler $7.50 and the first applicant wants $8 but the guy behind him will do the same quality of work for the $7.50 the second guy gets the job. The end product value does not drive the pay of the worker. the value of labor is what he produced minus capital on a market... you are referring to the idea that its ok to rent oneself, which has nothing to do with markets, but state action and hierarchy... thats what the 100$ is a metaphor for... you are confusing free markets and what the state deems private property... think about it, why would that single person not keep the extra 300$ to himself? imagine if there was some other random person and he took part of that 300 that his labor produced. thats called theft... its the whole reason capitalists would rather hire someone. you get a reward for doing nothing, except give permission... Edited September 5, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 except that there was in the 1930s and hitler did invade to help the nationalists... take a single person... say he has a 100$... and then buys **** to build a bike. when the bike is complete its worth say 400$... the capital is obviously worth 100, the use value or labor is worth 300... So what happens if I give my laborer a screwdriver instead of a hammer. Now the cost to build that bike is $75 instead of $100 Do I lower the cost of my bike to $375? Do I pay the laborer the additional $25 generated from my innovation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 So what happens if I give my laborer a screwdriver instead of a hammer. Now the cost to build that bike is $75 instead of $100 Do I lower the cost of my bike to $375? Do I pay the laborer the additional $25 generated from my innovation? Coming soon http://www.atlasshruggedmovie.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 the value of labor is what he produced minus capital on a market... you are referring to the idea that its ok to rent oneself, which has nothing to do with markets, but state action and hierarchy... thats what the 100$ is a metaphor for... you are confusing free markets and what the state deems private property... think about it, why would that single person not keep the extra 300$ to himself? imagine if there was some other random person and he took part of that 300 that his labor produced. thats called theft... its the whole reason capitalists would rather hire someone. you get a reward for doing nothing, except give permission... The value of labor is what it takes to replace it. If it's plentiful, you don't have much value. If it's not, you do. If you don't like it, you can take what you know, try and get a loan, and start your own company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) So what happens if I give my laborer a screwdriver instead of a hammer. Now the cost to build that bike is $75 instead of $100 Do I lower the cost of my bike to $375? Do I pay the laborer the additional $25 generated from my innovation? you fire him and do it yourself. ----------- it's not necessarily the labor but all the overhead that goes with it. -------------- Do you have your own company Doc? Edited September 5, 2012 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Do you have your own company Doc? I'm a partner in my group's corporation. We don't make bikes, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 take a single person... say he has a 100$... and then buys **** to build a bike. when the bike is complete its worth say 400$... the capital is obviously worth 100, the use value or labor is worth 300... I'll play along? Who's labor is worth $300? What if two bikes each cost $100 in materials, built in similar factories, using nearly identical components, yet one retails at $400, the other for $600. Does value of labor explain the price difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) So what happens if I give my laborer a screwdriver instead of a hammer. Now the cost to build that bike is $75 instead of $100 Do I lower the cost of my bike to $375? Do I pay the laborer the additional $25 generated from my innovation? The market/consumer determines the value of a given product... your innovation is fine, but still does not produce " use value" . the same would be true if it was just you by yourself... this is partly why democratic negotiation makes more sense... some people are smarter than others, and markets would filter that out... The value of labor is what it takes to replace it. If it's plentiful, you don't have much value. If it's not, you do. If you don't like it, you can take what you know, try and get a loan, and start your own company. yes, labor has value in a market, in the work they provide... supply and demand etc. we are not talking about that, but rather the extraction of surplus value... this has nothing to do with markets but rather power/state enforcement where labor cannot recapture their production... this is really a matter of common logical sense. if it was not profitable to loan capital( while doing no work), then capitalists wouldnt do it... lol "According to Marx's theory of exploitation, living labour at an adequate level of productivity is able to create and conserve more value than it costs the employer to buy; which is exactly the economic reason why the employer buys it, i.e. to preserve and augment the value of the capital at his command." - wiki Edited September 5, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 "According to Marx's theory of exploitation, living labour at an adequate level of productivity is able to create and conserve more value than it costs the employer to buy; which is exactly the economic reason why the employer buys it, i.e. to preserve and augment the value of the capital at his command." - wiki So according to marx the laborer is a victim of the system rather than a beneficiary of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 So according to marx the laborer is a victim of the system rather than a beneficiary of it? of course, people must work, and labor through capital control cannot get the full fruit of their work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 except that there was in the 1930s and hitler did invade to help the nationalists... I already presented you the facts of the Spanish Second Republic and the civil war. Reflexively denying doesn't make you any less wrong or stupid. You can look them up and verify them. take a single person... say he has a 100$... and then buys **** to build a bike. when the bike is complete its worth say 400$... the capital is obviously worth 100, the use value or labor is worth 300... That's retarded. In SO many different ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 The value of labor is what it takes to replace it. If it's plentiful, you don't have much value. If it's not, you do. If you don't like it, you can take what you know, try and get a loan, and start your own company. so if labor gets !@#$ed over by the system, they should just !@#$ others over with the system? basically you just said, if you dont like that i stole from you, then go steal from someone else I already presented you the facts of the Spanish Second Republic and the civil war. Reflexively denying doesn't make you any less wrong or stupid. You can look them up and verify them. That's retarded. In SO many different ways. ok... so take land/farming materials... say the value is worth 10,000$... at the end of the year, with your labor, you produced a crop worth 100,000.... did the farm magically produce surplus by itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 so if labor gets !@#$ed over by the system, they should just !@#$ others over with the system? basically you just said, if you dont like that i stole from you, then go steal from someone else ok... so take land/farming materials... say the value is worth 10,000$... at the end of the year, with your labor, you produced a crop worth 100,000.... did the farm magically produce surplus by itself? Trick question. You didn't produce the crop. Somebody else made that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 except that there was in the 1930s and hitler did invade to help the nationalists... take a single person... say he has a 100$... and then buys **** to build a bike. when the bike is complete its worth say 400$... the capital is obviously worth 100, the use value or labor is worth 300... Great explanation, except no where therein did you even approach anything resembling capital leverage. These words have meanings. You can't pull them out of your ass and expect to have even a semi-intelligent breakdown of just how wrong you are. Capital leverage would be if Wal Mart was using their vast asset base as collateral to obtain debt in order to fuel rapid expansion. Since Wal Mart's leverage ratios appear at a glance to be on the more conservative side of some of their peers, I'm comfortable in asserting that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) Trick question. You didn't produce the crop. Somebody else made that happen. well, here is the fundamental point, and you pinpointed it here with this quesiton. do we want a top down system of hierarchy... or should people have say in decisions that so drastically affect them, especially when they are losing so much production in a market... Great explanation, except no where therein did you even approach anything resembling capital leverage. These words have meanings. You can't pull them out of your ass and expect to have even a semi-intelligent breakdown of just how wrong you are. Capital leverage would be if Wal Mart was using their vast asset base as collateral to obtain debt in order to fuel rapid expansion . Since Wal Mart's leverage ratios appear at a glance to be on the more conservative side of some of their peers, I'm comfortable in asserting that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. which small business cant compete with, which is what i said... Edited September 5, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 ok... so take land/farming materials... say the value is worth 10,000$... at the end of the year, with your labor, you produced a crop worth 100,000.... did the farm magically produce surplus by itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 which small business cant compete with, which is what i said... Except that's not at all what you said, and one quick look at Wal Mart's balance sheet suggests that's not at all whats occurring. You described capital leverage as buying components of a bike and then selling the bike for more than the cost of its parts. What part of that asinine example sounds like rapid expansion fueled by aggressive levels of debt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts