Wacka Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Not this **** again from MDP. Looks like school started again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 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... 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 This is pretty obvious. But free will allows, at least in America, for you to take action if you feel exploited. You can leave and find another job or start your own company. You can demand better pay. Or you can accept being "exploited." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 This is pretty obvious. But free will allows, at least in America, for you to take action if you feel exploited. You can leave and find another job or start your own company. You can demand better pay. Or you can accept being "exploited." or you can join a union, demand higher pay and better benefits for the same amount of work and bankrupt your company or City/County. http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2012/07/11/san-bernardino-joins-list-of-bankrupt-cities/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 or you can join a union, demand higher pay and better benefits for the same amount of work and bankrupt your company or City/County. http://blogs.kqed.or...ankrupt-cities/ No doubt Karl would be proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 or you can join a union, demand higher pay and better benefits for the same amount of work and bankrupt your company or City/County. http://blogs.kqed.or...ankrupt-cities/ You just don't get it. If I buy $20 worth of metal and make a bike, and I sell that bike for $50, then I own your hammer and thats just plain f#$%ed up, man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 You just don't get it. If I buy $20 worth of metal and make a bike, and I sell that bike for $50, then I own your hammer and thats just plain f#$%ed up, man! I thought he meant that if I buy/rent a building, then I buy $20 worth of metal and hire you to build a bike and sell it for $100 I should give you $80 and ask the government for a subsidy for the overhead costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 I thought he meant that if I buy/rent a building, then I buy $20 worth of metal and hire you to build a bike and sell it for $100 I should give you $80 and ask the government for a subsidy for the overhead costs. No you should pay him 50 for his labor, and pay the government 50% of the revenue, so 50 for them. Therefore that bike cost 120 to build, and you lost 20, by the obama rules. After all the laborer and government built your business they should be the only ones who profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 If I ever meet MDP in person, I pray I don't have a hammer in my hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Maybe he's saying you should pay people to take your bikes? Why screw the consumer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 No you should pay him 50 for his labor, and pay the government 50% of the revenue, so 50 for them. Therefore that bike cost 120 to build, and you lost 20, by the obama rules. After all the laborer and government built your business they should be the only ones who profit. Hey, it worked in China in the 1920s, until Stalin invaded... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 We should take MDPs hammer and start smashing bikes. Imagine all the demand for new bikes this would stimulate! Might as well throw in a tax credit while we're at it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 We should take MDPs hammer and start smashing bikes. Imagine all the demand for new bikes this would stimulate! Might as well throw in a tax credit while we're at it Wasn't that Dave In Norfolk's plan to grow aggregate demand? Cash for smash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 We should take MDPs hammer and start smashing bikes. Imagine all the demand for new bikes this would stimulate! Might as well throw in a tax credit while we're at it But if you borrow my hammer and smash your bike and buy a new one, I own your bike because you paid for smashing the old bike with my labor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 But if you borrow my hammer and smash your bike and buy a new one, I own your bike because you paid for smashing the old bike with my labor. Whether you own the bike or I do is irrelevant. We all belong to the Government so the bike is theirs to redistribute as they see fit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Whether you own the bike or I do is irrelevant. We all belong to the Government so the bike is theirs to redistribute as they see fit Karl Marx wrote, "The easiest way to turn a nation into a State Run Socialist or Communist country is to first divide the people and redistribute wealth under the guise of equality. This alone will cause the split needed to crush private enterprise and throw a nation into turmoil, everything else will fall into place." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Karl Marx wrote, "The easiest way to turn a nation into a State Run Socialist or Communist country is to first divide the people and redistribute wealth under the guise of equality. This alone will cause the split needed to crush private enterprise and throw a nation into turmoil, everything else will fall into place." So, the BO plan is working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 MDP: If a man were forced to work, in captivity, against his will; then you would be correct. The value added with his compulsory labor would be theft; which is essentially what slavery is from an economic standpoint. However, if the man is not conscripted, and instead freely chooses to trade his commoditized labor for a rate of pay or other goods which he deems fair, he has not been exploited. It does not matter if the realized gain of value is carried by the man who purchased the labor, if none of the exchanges have been compulsory there has been no theft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 MDP: If a man were forced to work, in captivity, against his will; then you would be correct. The value added with his compulsory labor would be theft; which is essentially what slavery is from an economic standpoint. However, if the man is not conscripted, and instead freely chooses to trade his commoditized labor for a rate of pay or other goods which he deems fair, he has not been exploited. It does not matter if the realized gain of value is carried by the man who purchased the labor, if none of the exchanges have been compulsory there has been no theft. He's going to respond by somehow explaining that even if labor isn't compulsory, it's compulsory. Probably along the lines of it being exploitative, because the capitalist earns money from the labor without doing anything, which makes it slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 He's going to respond by somehow explaining that even if labor isn't compulsory, it's compulsory. Probably along the lines of it being exploitative, because the capitalist earns money from the labor without doing anything, which makes it slavery. He may as well argue that he's being repressed by gravity, because he can't fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 He may as well argue that he's being repressed by gravity, because he can't fly. And if he had fallen and couldn't get up, well that would be surplus gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts