 |
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Just too many details that I haven't even though about, because they don't seem important. |
These "details" are the crux of your position. If you haven't thought of them, then you have absolutely no basis in which to say the communism is better than capitalism. How can you say something is better when you don't know how it would work?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Sure they are, but I'm lazy, and I just don't feel like figuring everything out for no reason. |
So you admit that when you espouse communism, you have no idea what you're talking about. It's just something easy to say, right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
but I'm lazy, |
hmmmmm . .. . . . direct quote --- Funny you freely claim to be something .. . . the very same something you went ballistic about when you believed I IMPLIED it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
What I love is that Kid refuses to play the capitalist game. He seems to realize that he has tons of options, but he won't take any of them. But it's the system that's screwing him over!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
You've both really pretty much been ignored by me anyway. I guess you will go on jacking threads that I start and starting threads that personally attack me, but I'm pretty much done with you guys. |
Am I in the "both" ???
How is it jacking threads to quote you and ask a pointed question?
Show me one time I personally attacked you. I can point out dozens where you attacked others with comments like "moron" or "dumbass" or all those posts with all the asterisks. It just highlights to me the weakness of your arguments that you have to resort to such tactics
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
Ag, yes. There is no denying that the land has some inherent value (that value being, whatever the owner paid for it...its market price).
However, before the land can be put to productive use, it must be made available for productive use. Until then, it is inert. It simply sits there, generally appreciating in value all by itself, as land tends to do.
But the moment it is made available for more productive use, it gains value.
How? It's the same plot of land it always was. Its intrinsic value did not change. But now, because the enabler-capitalist has made his land available for some or other productive enterprise, its value has increased. The availablity of the land enables labor to build a building on it (enhancing its value further still), and a company to be born (enhancing its value further still, as a chunk of land with an empty building is worth LESS than a land, with a building, housing a thriving company).
Your paradigm simply "skips a step." You assume no property rights in your utopia, so the state owns all. Then you assume that the state will automatically know when and to whom to make land available for productive enterprises, and so, gloss over the decision making process there.
This does not change the fact, however, that it's still a discreet, independent step. Making the land available for a particular productive enterprise is still there in one form or another.
The fact is that capital, in whatever form it takes, ENABLES options. It is flexible in its very nature.
And flexibility is valuable in its own right.
Having options is valuable in its own right.
Capital enables that, so I stand by my point.
In general, here is a map of business creation.
1) Young, enterprising guy gets an idea in his head for a new business, but recognizes that he lacks means and options (capital) to get it off the ground. Value has been created at this time. Thinking up a new idea creates the value (even if, at this stage, the idea only has value to the person who created it).
2) He pitches the idea to some wealthy, more established individual or institution (VC or a bank, or a personal contact). If said point of contact thinks the idea has merit (ie, if also thinks the idea has value), he or she takes a risk on the young, enterprising person and makes capital available to the individual with the idea. Value has been created at this time, as now, the idea has gained momentum. It is no longer an idea in a vaccuum, but now, someone else has ALSO put their faith into the new idea, and made resources available for that particular purpose. The person WITH the idea now has an array of options to pursue in terms of executing the steps necessary to get the idea from "dream" to "reality". The capital enables this.
3) Buildings are built, people are hired, and the enterprising young person executes his or her plan. With diligence, work, AND a good plan, he or she has a good shot at success.
All three steps create value. Most communists agree that thinkers and inventors create value, but Kid oscillates on this point. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. What all communists seem to believe, however, is that there is no value in step two. This is where we disagree.
Even in a communist utopia, the question of deciding who uses what land for what purpose must still be addressed. In this case, it is addressed by the state owner, rather than a private owner, but the decision must still be made, and the central planning commission must still either release, or not release sufficient resources to the pursuit of wealth creation in specific cases. The act of doing so creates value whether or not it is recognized by the state. Again, the value is in the ENABLING the business to be born at all. Without that step, there IS no enterprise, and labor never gets the chance to do anything.
The land didn't enable it. The land has been there the whole time. The guy with the idea didn't enable it, because he lacked the means to do so. The owner of the land enabled it, when he (or in this case, "the state" made it available for that purpose).
Value.
I am curious, too, Ag. Kid has such widely divergent views from the rest of you, so let me ask you...do YOU believe in the time value of money? Do you subscribe to the notion that interest and rent is also bad? (I know these things are standard communist doctrine, but was just checking). If so, then can you explain where my motivation would be in lending some of my saved dollars to someone else for any particular purpose?
I mean, let us suppose that I'm living in a communist utopia, and I diligently work and save money. I make more money than I need to survive, so wind up with more than I need in a given month.
Next door to me, there's a fellow who is driving one of the People's Autos, but he likes to party, and so, when the auto breaks down, he lacks the money to repair it (and the People's Mechanics still charge a "usage fee" for him to bring the car in). Point is, he can't make the usage fee.
So my question is this: If I loan the guy two hundred bucks to fix the car, how much should he pay me back? Do I just get my two hundred back over the course of time, or is there some acknowledgement that:
a) I'm risking my money (he might not pay me back)
b) I can't use the money until he pays it back
c) Some time will pass until he pays me back
To Kid: Excuse me?
Personally attacking you? If I recall correctly, good sir, it was YOU who went on the whole "Vel-is-a-Monster" tirade yesterday. That seemed more a case of you attacking me, than the other way around.
Difference is, I can take it.
I bite back, rather than whining.
If you can't handle it, don't start...
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
quote:
2) (your example) A wealthy individual sells or donates land, and arranges a loan (both capital) to an enterprising young man to build a factory and start a business. Without the money and land to get started, the labor has nothing to DO. No focus. No land or machinery to work ON, no building to work IN. Without these, the project never gets off the ground. |
But you said that the donator creates value. Surely the value is inherent in the land in question. As I said, if labour is applied to the land to increase its value, that creates value.
I can think of various ways in which increases in value might come about. One would be if land became scarce. But the landowner has done nothing to create this value either. One could imagine that others have by appropriating other land, but that doesn't change the essential point, the owner creates no value. |
He doesn't create value in the land. The labour produces a certain amount of value, when the land is applied to it, it creates a larger amount of value. Thus we say the land creates the extra value.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-12-2004 05:13
|