13-12-2004 22:39									#241
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker I have Y labor which creates X value. I have Z capital, which I apply to Y. Y now produces k*X value, where k > 1.

Ah, but there are dynamics involved. Z affects Y profoundly.

	13-12-2004 22:39									#242
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Like fixing up the house Vel bought? Vel put labor into it, coupled with capital (he had to pay for the supplies). I'd say that's part labor, part risk (more money into the investment). If innovation was involved, that figures in as well, although I was thinking more along the lines of inventing a new product (in which case Vel might REALLY become a pigdog oppressor). -Arrian

No leave aside the labor element for the moment. Assume I buy a house for 300K and without any repairs at all it is now worth 350K. Assume that rent adequately compensated for the labor for maintaining the property. Inflation generally was only 2% in those two years.

Is the property owner "entitled" to this compensation on the sale of the property?

	13-12-2004 22:42									#243
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Clearly, to make a profit, they receive more than just compensation for their costs... but that's where the "risk" element comes into play.

Profit is the incentive to risk their capital on the investment in the first place.

-Arrian

	13-12-2004 22:42									#244
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by GePap My uncle, who was one of 7 children who grew up in the house his mothers family had built for themselves became a doctor, and ow he has 4 properties, One huge 8 room house, a beach house, a house in the hills, an apartment in the City, none of which he rents. Anyways, what does renting a property have to do with capitalism? Capitalism =/ free markets, or even markets. Its a much more complicated relation, and of course, making money a commodity in itself. A Landlord is not a capitalist, since a feudal lord or a Mercantalist might as well be a landlord.

A landlord is a capitalist. He owns capital. He invests that capital to exploit someone. It's no different than owning a business. And why do you think rent isn't determined in the market?

	13-12-2004 22:44									#245
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Clearly, to make a profit, they receive more than just compensation for their costs... but that's where the "risk" element comes into play. It's the risk bit that justifies (to me) their profit. It's the incentive to risk their capital on the investment in the first place. -Arrian

Ok so you think that they should be compensated for their risk beyond the cost. Why is that? And obviously you think there should be a limit to this. Why, and how much?

	13-12-2004 22:45									#246
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker I have Y labor which creates X value. I have Z capital, which I apply to Y. Y now produces k*X value, where k > 1.

Kuci

we have been down this road before. Its the old ditchdigher-tractor problem. If I recall correctly, it may be "fair" to pay a ditchdigger 30 kulats per hour but if a dirty capitalist provides a tractor to the ditchdigger such that he can work 10 times as quickly, this is exploitation even if the ditchdigger nets 100 kulats an hour. It seemed irrelevent to kid whther the the ditchdigger/tractor driver paid rent for the use of the tractor OR was paid a wage. . . . It was exploitation if te tractor owner profited at all.

	13-12-2004 22:49									#247
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Ok so you think that they should be compensated for their risk beyond the cost. Why is that? And obviously you think there should be a limit to this. Why, and how much?

Generally, what the market will bear. However, some markets aren't really free markets due to entry costs (like energy). The other exception, to me, is when the product provided is considered a basic necessity (shelter). In short, there is a difference between selling a luxury (say, Televisions) and a necessity (being a landlord). This is why you often see rent controls (NYC has them, IIRC), but nobody seriously advances the idea of price controls on TVs. We have food stamps (government intervention in the marketplace), but we don't have TV stamps.

-Arrian

	13-12-2004 22:49									#248
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious A landlord is a capitalist. He owns capital. He invests that capital to exploit someone. It's no different than owning a business. And why do you think rent isn't determined in the market?

Real estate is NOT capital. It can be converted into Capital, but it is NOT capital in and off itself. A landlord can go bankrupt (if they refuse to liquidate their assets into Capital to pay back creditors). This was the very heart of the dispute between moneyed Merchants and the landed nobility in Europe.

You can't argue this very well can you kid, if you are wrong about stuff as basic as this.

	13-12-2004 22:51									#249
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Generally, what the market will bear. However, some markets aren't really free markets due to entry costs (like energy). The other exception, to me, is when the product provided is considered a basic necessity (shelter). In short, there is a difference between selling a luxury (say, Televisions) and a necessity (being a landlord). This is why you often see rent controls (NYC has them, IIRC), but nobody seriously advances the idea of price controls on TVs. We have food stamps (government intervention in the marketplace), but we don't have TV stamps. -Arrian

Only two more questions. The next question is "who pays for this incentive?"

	13-12-2004 22:52									#250
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap Real estate is NOT capital. It can be converted into Capital, but it is NOT capital in and off itself. A landlord can go bankrupt (if they refuse to liquidate their assets into Capital to pay back creditors). This was the very heart of the dispute between moneyed Merchants and the landed nobility in Europe. You can't argue this very well can you kid, if you are wrong about stuff as basic as this.

What's your point Gepap? Where is the significant difference?

	13-12-2004 22:53									#251
	Full PM-box? Change here!

In the case of the landlord, clearly the renters. They, meanwhile, are getting the benifit of a home that they either a) cannot afford to simply purchase outright; or b) do not wish to simply purchase outright.

In most cases, it's a mutually benificial relationship. I rented for several years after college. I don't feel like I got screwed over. Especially in my second apartment. It was cheap, and the company that owned it was great about maintenance

-Arrian

	13-12-2004 22:59									#252
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious What's your point Gepap? Where is the significant difference?

This supposedly is a discussion about Capitalism vs Communism. If that is true, then at least the people participating should know what these two theories are all about.

Capitalism is more than just a market. Barter is a type of market economy, but it has 0 to do with capitalism. In capitalism, money itself becomes a commodity, as opposed to just a means of standardizing the value of goods. There is a reason why capitalism is different from Mercantalism, the previous economic system. For God's sake, if this is really about Cap Vs. Com, then at least lets know the tersm correctly- Marx himself wrote about the difference.

Again, Real Estate does NOT equal capital, and just a landowner is not a capitalist. In fact, the landed gentry was always opposed to capitalism at its inception-hence fights vs free trade and such.

	13-12-2004 23:04									#253
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Arrian In the case of the landlord, clearly the renters.

Bingo Arrian! The renters pay, and they pay becuase they have to. They have to agree to rent because they have no other options. That's not incentive. That's exploitation.

Let's go back to our conversation about polution. You suggest giving companies incentive not to polute and not to move overseas.

I ask you again, why should we allow this. We don't have to pay this 'incentive.' Incentive is just a bullshit term. It's exploitation and you know it.

	13-12-2004 23:07									#254
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by GePap This supposedly is a discussion about Capitalism vs Communism. If that is true, then at least the people participating should know what these two theories are all about. Capitalism is more than just a market. Barter is a type of market economy, but it has 0 to do with capitalism. In capitalism, money itself becomes a commodity, as opposed to just a means of standardizing the value of goods. There is a reason why capitalism is different from Mercantalism, the previous economic system. For God's sake, if this is really about Cap Vs. Com, then at least lets know the tersm correctly- Marx himself wrote about the difference. Again, Real Estate does NOT equal capital, and just a landowner is not a capitalist. In fact, the landed gentry was always opposed to capitalism at its inception-hence fights vs free trade and such.

Communism is about freedom from exploitation. Rent is an exploitive institution. Marx specifically identified it as so. So it is very relavent to the conversation here.

	13-12-2004 23:12									#255
	Increase the size of your Attachments

No, Kid, it's not.

With regard to the renters, I repeat:

quote: They, meanwhile, are getting the benifit of a home that they either a) cannot afford to simply purchase outright; or b) do not wish to simply purchase outright. In most cases, it's a mutually benificial relationship. I rented for several years after college. I don't feel like I got screwed over. Especially in my second apartment. It was cheap, and the company that owned it was great about maintenance

I rented before I owned (well, actually my fiancee owns the house, but I contribute). I wasn't exploited.

I paid $575/month for the last year in my last apartment (cheap for a 2 bedroom, eh?). Let's assume that $500 of that simply covers the landlord's costs, and $75 is profit. Multiply that over the # of tenants in the development and you get a lot of money.

But then again, it costs a lot of money to upgrade the buildings, should that become desirable and/or necessary. Maybe $25 per tenant is set aside for that, leaving $50 per tenant per month in profit (minus taxes).

You think that's exploitation. I don't - I see it as an incentive to build the development in the first place and provide a cheap, clean, safe apartment for me to live in.

Again, I understand that landlords can be unscrupulous. But so can the government...

-Arrian

	13-12-2004 23:17									#256
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I realize that you have to pay capitalists in the capitalist system. You politely call that incentive. I do not. I again ask you why we should pay this if we don't want to. Why shouldn't we look for a way to do things without paying the capitalists? You may like to pay, others do not.

Do you think the capitalists deserve to get paid this 'incentive'? And if you do I want to right to the heart of that.

	13-12-2004 23:24									#257
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: I again ask you why we should pay this if we don't want to. Why shouldn't we look for a way to do things without paying the capitalists?

Because it works better than communism. At least that's my belief. I *do* want it this way. Some people would rather pay a guy like Vel (costs plus incentive/profit) than the government. Vel might provide much better service, for instance.

The incentive exists so that people will go above & beyond in search of profit. Without incentive you tend to get a crappy product & service.

I support government subsidized or owned urban low-income housing for the poor, as part of the social safety net. I think that system would be more effective than communism at meeting people's needs & wants.

Just my opinion, of course...

-Arrian

	13-12-2004 23:24									#258
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Ah, but there are dynamics involved. Z affects Y profoundly.

That's irrelevent. When you apply Z to Y, you increase X. When you take a bunch of shoemakers and put them in an assembly line factory thing, you increase the number of shoes produced (and thus the total amount of value produced by the labor of the shoemakers). It's reasonable to say that the capital (the factory) created this extra value. It may be more precise to say the capital magnified the value, but we're not being pedantic here.

	13-12-2004 23:25									#259
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Communism is about freedom from exploitation. Rent is an exploitive institution. Marx specifically identified it as so. So it is very relavent to the conversation here.

That is not what I think of as communism. But hey, to each their own.

	13-12-2004 23:25									#260
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Kuci we have been down this road before. Its the old ditchdigher-tractor problem. If I recall correctly, it may be "fair" to pay a ditchdigger 30 kulats per hour but if a dirty capitalist provides a tractor to the ditchdigger such that he can work 10 times as quickly, this is exploitation even if the ditchdigger nets 100 kulats an hour. It seemed irrelevent to kid whther the the ditchdigger/tractor driver paid rent for the use of the tractor OR was paid a wage. . . . It was exploitation if te tractor owner profited at all.

I'm not talking about fairness. I'm explaining why we are saying application of capital creates value.

	13-12-2004 23:26									#261
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Arrian,

That is fair. You don't believe that communism can work. I can accept that. But the least you can do is admit that capitalism is exploitive. Can you do that?

	13-12-2004 23:27									#262
	Increase Your PM Length

Also, let me retract my Marx statement about land and capital, since Marx may have had a more Kidian interpretation of land than I thought.

Of course, marx's economic interpretations were always the great achilles heel of his writing, cause I think his economic notions were generally wrong.

	13-12-2004 23:27									#263
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by GePap That is not what I think of as communism. But hey, to each their own.

Do you think it is just planned economics?

	13-12-2004 23:31									#264
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker That's irrelevent. When you apply Z to Y, you increase X. When you take a bunch of shoemakers and put them in an assembly line factory thing, you increase the number of shoes produced (and thus the total amount of value produced by the labor of the shoemakers). It's reasonable to say that the capital (the factory) created this extra value. It may be more precise to say the capital magnified the value, but we're not being pedantic here.

It's not irrelevent. Human societ is greatly affected by the relationships between the members. You only want to look at things on the mico level because that fits your world view. Capitalists as a group have a conflicting interest with workers. This creates a political and economic dynamic.

	13-12-2004 23:31									#265
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Arrian, That is fair. You don't believe that communism can work. I can accept that. But the least you can do is admit that capitalism is exploitive. Can you do that?

To me, exploitation is a situation where one person or entity takes advantage of another. Since I see mostly mutually advantageous relationships in our society, I don't see systemic exploitation.

There *is* some. There has always been some. I think the general trend is downward, however.

-Arrian

	13-12-2004 23:35									#266
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Arrian To me, exploitation is a situation where one person or entity takes advantage of another. Since I see mostly mutually advantageous relationships in our society, I don't see systemic exploitation. There *is* some. There has always been some. I think the general trend is downward, however. -Arrian

Ah excuss me but maybe you didn't notice, but everyone doesn't get mutual advantage. Hello!

	13-12-2004 23:42									#267
	Support Apolyton

I didn't say everyone, Kid. I said mostly, and agreed that there is some exploitation.

It's a very subjective thing, really. After all, the money charged by a landlord in rent covers - in part - his labor. Therefore, in order to determine whether or not the landlord is exploiting his renters one has to determine (among other things - like what recourse the renters may have to move elsewhere) whether he's valuing his labor properly. Who decides what his labor is worth? Who decides what YOUR labor is worth? Under communism, it seems to me that would be the government (and thus, society at large). Under capitalism, it's the market. NEWSFLASH: either way, it's not you!

In many cases, exploitation is prevent or minimized by competition. It's when competition is lacking that the worst problems arise.

-Arrian

	13-12-2004 23:45									#268
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Do you think it is just planned economics?

No, since in True communism there is no one to plan (since there is no government period)

To me communism is a socio-political aim, not an economic issue whatsoever. Economics is a tool than can be used for a variety of aims.While perhaps Marx will be proven correct in his dialectic historical vision, generally for me communism is a political aim, not an economic reality. Thus thinking it can come about eocnomically, it is wrong.

	13-12-2004 23:57									#269
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap Also, let me retract my Marx statement about land and capital, since Marx may have had a more Kidian interpretation of land than I thought. Of course, marx's economic interpretations were always the great achilles heel of his writing, cause I think his economic notions were generally wrong.

Land certainly seems to be a means of production. I'd call it capital. For one, you can farm it. In that case it's definately a means of production (unlike a mine, a farm actually produces stuff). And a house constantly produces a product, "shelter".

	14-12-2004 00:01									#270
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Land certainly seems to be a means of production. I'd call it capital. For one, you can farm it. In that case it's definately a means of production (unlike a mine, a farm actually produces stuff). And a house constantly produces a product, "shelter".

"Shelter" is not a product, but you are right that land is capable of being productive if farmed, and hence Marx does categorize it as "capital". As I said, I think this is part of Marx's failing.