 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by aneeshm
I'm not talking about a central bank , but about a group of mutual funds , under a common leadership . If they had not invested money , then the quantum of money would have remained almost constant ( money owned by the economy + capital k owned by mutual funds ) .
|
Yeah, I know your not, but the central bank does the same thing basically. They buy bonds. They inject capital into the economy.
quote:
I hope we both agree that the supply of capital caused the growth of the quantum of wealth .
|
It increased the level of spending in the economy which encouraged people to work. The work created the value. If I tell you 'hey come over and help me move' did I move anything? Hell no. How would you like it if I told you that I did all the work because I asked you to help me?
quote:
That is actually how the capital k created the money ( the growth of 4 % ) , because the people were working the same amount before and after , but the capital invested caused the same work to give higher returns .
How is that , you ask ? It's like this . A producer has no capital , thus is working for a wage . Now , this same producer , getting the necessary capital , starts production , and causes a increase in the quantum of wealth . The work he did both times was the same , but the capital caused the same work to give higher returns . This is why the availability of capital can exponentially increase the growth potential of an economy , given the same amount of work , like in my example of the fledgeling economy . Everything else remaining constant , capital availability tends to create wealth proportional to the amount available .
Ultimately , this is how wealth creates more wealth . If you disagree , please tell me why and how . |
Absurd. Your talking about a control mechanism to get people to work and collect the proceeds of there work. If I own a slave and I whip him did the whip create value? Ridiculous.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FredKarno
|
|
Dear Kidicious,
It seems your are outnumbered a great deal and manfully you fight on. I reckon this is a nice forum.
Any fool can see that we live in highly imperfect world, putting it politely. Human beings have much evil in them no matter what they believe. Existence is infinitely unequal. Your religion denies this. Don't you think that reality trancends all?
Drop all Marxist/socialist thought, and become a (relative - for everything rubs off) free thinker. Many men in your plight have managed to do this. Go for it!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
If you all believe that if you drop a rock it will fall up does that make it true? |
Depending on the definition of "drop" and "up" 
But seriously, laws of physics aren't based on perceptions. Physics doesn't change due to things such as supply and demand, profit margins, etc. Value does, and this has been adequately pointed out to you many times.
If everyone believes that a rock will fall up, that belief doesn't change a thing. However, if everyone believes one day that the value of a ditch digger is $10/hour, then that is the value of a ditch digger in terms of labor. The next week, if there is high unemployment all of a sudden, and tons of prospective ditch diggers, then the value of their labor will go down. Law of supply and demand, it's simple economics
Now, if you want to assert that the definition of value is a law of nature, similar to physics, then come out and say it. Everyone will laugh at you, though, and that assertion is demonstrably not true.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Book I, Chapter V
Of the Real and Nominal Price of Commodities, or of their Price in Labour, and their Price in Money
Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniencies, and amusements of human life.*1 But after the division of labour has once thoroughly taken place, it is but a very small part of these with which a man's own labour can supply him. The far greater part of them he must derive from the labour of other people, and he must be rich or poor according to the quantity of that labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.
I.5.1
The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour,*2 as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body. That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command.
I.5.2
Wealth, as Mr. Hobbes says, is power.*3 But the person who either acquires, or succeeds to a great fortune, does not necessarily acquire or succeed to any political power, either civil or military. His fortune may, perhaps, afford him the means of acquiring both, but the mere possession of that fortune does not necessarily convey to him either. The power which that possession immediately and directly conveys to him, is the power of purchasing; a certain command over all the labour, or over all the produce of labour which is then in the market. His fortune is greater or less, precisely in proportion to the extent of this power; or to the quantity either of other men's labour, or, what is the same thing, of the produce of other men's labour, which it enables him to purchase or command. The exchangeable value of every thing must always be precisely equal to the extent of this power which it conveys to its owner.*
|
- Adam Smith (The the real Adam Smith)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FredKarno
|
|
It's a bit like quoting the bible - you can make of it what you wish.
Deny human evil all you want - it still is here in gigantic amount and you socialists ignore it, therefore increasing the power of it. The history of socialism proves this most of all. You should be ashamed. The mass-murder of tens of millions by those who spoke just like you is abundant proof.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Kidicious, I have a question.
How does work create value?
If I dig ditches in my backyard and the fill them up all day, I have done a great amount of work, but there is no value.
If I work and work and make many widgets that no one has a need for or wants, then I have done a lot of work, but there is no value.
I am having trouble seeing how work is creating value because of situations like the above. Products need to be desired and wanted (issues of how those products are viewed) in order for there to be value.
For instance, let's take food. Perhaps two different types of plant cost the same amount in seeds to grow, and require the same amount of labor to produce. When you go to market however, one is worth more than the other (perhaps it tastes better or something), so there is a different value between the two products. However, the same amount of work was put into producing each one.
I am trying to see where you are coming from on this, but I think the above examples are inherently problematic.
-Drachasor
PS. I have not followed most of this thread, so forgive me if I am pointing out something that has been discussed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
PS. I have not followed most of this thread, so forgive me if I am pointing out something that has been discussed. |
You've basically rehashed my points, but don't worry, he has repeatedly ignored me, so maybe he'll listen to you.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-10-2004 00:05
|