15-12-2004 17:38									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Useless to society, Motivated people will take the initiative and look at long-term prospects for employment and not go down a dead end. If they find themselves in a job that looks to be on the chopping block, they've probably seen the writing on the wall and made alternative arrangements. They may not always do what they want or live where they want, but they'll suck it up with a long term plan and make things happen for themselves, and not ***** about how the system is screwing them over. A lazy person will accept their fate, maybe complain about it, and refuse to do any number of things that will improve their financial position.

You didn't answer my question.

	15-12-2004 17:47									#62
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Ag: The one thing I think you fail to grasp is that "living off rents" is not...I repeat, is NOT living without doing any work.

You aren't so dense as to not understand that it is possible to live off of rent and not no work what so ever for your entire life, are you?

	15-12-2004 17:52									#63
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker I'd say that we've come a VERY long way towards a stable economy since the 30's. And I doubt that most of it is due to "communist" reforms - it's due to things like the Fed.

Actually the amount of ficticious capital (that which doesn't represent productive value in the economy) is increasing at an exponential rate. The risk of collapse is becoming tremendous, and when it happens you won't have the same Keynesian options to recover.

	15-12-2004 18:07									#64
	Increase Your PM Length

Ag: I think I see what you're getting at - that everything comes from labor, etc. My point was that everything ultimately comes from labor, much like all energy ultimately comes from the sun. It doesn't mean we shouldn't use wind power.

	15-12-2004 18:12									#65
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Good for you Kuci. I don't really know what you meant about the wind power though.

I was just going to ask if some of you who don't seem to understand the Marxist theory of value have actually bothered to read about it. I've been beating my head against the wall here for months. It might help is some of you, who also spend a lot of time misunderstanding me, actually read about the theory on the internet or something.

	15-12-2004 18:19									#66
	Remove this text

quote: Good for you Kuci. I don't really know what you meant about the wind power though.

Good for me, because I'm demonstrating why you don't even understand your own claims? Everything ultimately comes from labor, but some value comes proximately from capital. Capital can create value, it's just that capital comes from labor. There's nothing wrong with capitalism by that notion - I used my labor to create something that creates value. You seem to have a problem with the whole hiring issue, and a seperate problem with people living off of capital... would you have an issue if I built a machine that, without any labor input at all (beyond constructing it) made everything I needed, and then I lived off of it?

	15-12-2004 18:36									#67
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Good for you Kuci. I don't really know what you meant about the wind power though. Good for me, because I'm demonstrating why you don't even understand your own claims? Everything ultimately comes from labor, but some value comes proximately from capital. Capital can create value, it's just that capital comes from labor. There's nothing wrong with capitalism by that notion - I used my labor to create something that creates value. You seem to have a problem with the whole hiring issue, and a seperate problem with people living off of capital... would you have an issue if I built a machine that, without any labor input at all (beyond constructing it) made everything I needed, and then I lived off of it?

Let's say someone worked for someone else and there was no capital involved. That laborer produced 10 widgets. Should he be compensated money for 10 widgets?

	15-12-2004 19:18									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Capital can create value

Not quite.
Value is created by a combination of capital and labour. Even the shovel of a ditch-digger can be considered as "capital". And with such a capital, the ditch-digger produces far more value than what he would produce with his bare hands.

If you live off your capital, your income (value) isn't magically created: it's generated by somebody's work. And we live in a system that justifies the fact that capital owners get a part of the value created by those who work with their capital.

	15-12-2004 19:19									#69
	Tired of ads?

And around and around and around we go....

Kid, I'm sorry you didn't like my answer, but from someone who can read "the more training required to to develop a skilled laborer, the more that laborer should be compensated" and then not understand why that means a doctor should be compensated more than a ditch digger, you'll excuse me if I'm not surprised you don't understand it.

	15-12-2004 19:21									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Let's say someone worked for someone else and there was no capital involved. That laborer produced 10 widgets. Should he be compensated money for 10 widgets?

Why wouldn't he? What system proposes that he wouldn't?

	15-12-2004 19:28									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Not quite. Value is created by a combination of capital and labour. Even the shovel of a ditch-digger can be considered as "capital". And with such a capital, the ditch-digger produces far more value than what he would produce with his bare hands. If you live off your capital, your income (value) isn't magically created: it's generated by somebody's work. And we live in a system that justifies the fact that capital owners get a part of the value created by those who work with their capital.

There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between your first paragraph and your second. You admit that value is created by a combination of capital and labour, and give a good example. You then say that if you live off your capital, value isn't magically created and that our system rewards the owner of that capital with part of the value. Why wouldn't it? If you need capital and labour to create value, why would you only compensate one side of the equation?

	15-12-2004 19:33									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Why wouldn't he?

Because he works in a greater whole?

Let's say Kid produces the widgets, along with many other widget-producers, and some people working for the same boss are specialized into selling them.

1. The colleagues who work but who don't produce the widgets will need to be rewarded as well (thus the value of the widgets will not be evenly distributed only among Kid and his colleagues in production)

2. The owner of the structure will want a part of the pie, regardless of whether he works in that structure or not.

While I think 1 is a necessity in all societies that know division of labour, 2 is specific to a society where the owner of the means of production (be it even a structure with no tools involved) decides how the resources are allocated. And of course, he'll allocate quite a few resources to himself.

	15-12-2004 19:40									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Because he works in a greater whole? Let's say Kid produces the widgets, along with many other widget-producers, and some people working for the same boss are specialized into selling them. 1. The colleagues who work but who don't produce the widgets will need to be rewarded as well (thus the value of the widgets will not be evenly distributed only among Kid and his colleagues in production) 2. The owner of the structure will want a part of the pie, regardless of whether he works in that structure or not. While I think 1 is a necessity in all societies that know division of labour, 2 is specific to a society where the owner of the means of production (be it even a structure with no tools involved) decides how the resources are allocated. And of course, he'll allocate quite a few resources to himself.

Whether the owner of the capital is taking his "fair share" is another argument altogether. I still don't see a reason why the owner of the structure shouldn't be compensated at all. Without the structure, no one is producing widgets and none are being sold. As you admitted before, capital, along with the labour, has produced something of value. I could ask why would the owner of the capital would set up the structure if he wasn't going to be compensated for it, but we can keep it even more basic for now - if he works in the greater whole, why should he be the only one not compensated?

Edit: Sorry, I thought you were responding to my second post. The principle still applies, though.

	15-12-2004 19:41									#74
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki If you need capital and labour to create value, why would you only compensate one side of the equation?

Morals. Because, just like you, I think hard work should be rewarded.

This is why I support a system where the means of production aren't privately owned, and especially where the power to allocate resources lies in the hands of the labourers (to be more precise, I'm not strictly for a one-voter-one-vote democracy in the workplace, as all branches of the company need representation).

	15-12-2004 19:48									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Morals.

I'm not following you on the morals thing. Are you saying it's immoral to compensate the person who put up the money to build the widget factory, start up a production line and hires people to make widgets?

	15-12-2004 19:49									#76
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki if he works in the greater whole, why should he be the only one not compensated?

If he works in the structure, he should be compensated for his work. Overseeing a structure is a useful, and often exhausting, job. If he doesn't work in the structure anymore, however, I do not see why he should be rewarded for the value produced there.

Of course, in a system where people privately own the means of production, such would be unpractical, because there would be no incentive to invest further than in your own family business (i.e. creating your own means of production from which you earn your daily bread).

	15-12-2004 19:59									#77
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor If he works in the structure, he should be compensated for his work. Overseeing a structure is a useful, and often exhausting, job. If he doesn't work in the structure anymore, however, I do not see why he should be rewarded for the value produced there.

But he built the structure! Without him, there is no structure and no one is producing and selling widgets. You said yourself that value is created by a combination of capital and labour. The capital built the structure, the labour fabricates and sells the widgets. If both parts are necessary to create the value, why would only one part be compensated?

	15-12-2004 20:07									#78
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki I'm not following you on the morals thing. Are you saying it's immoral to compensate the person who put up the money to build the widget factory, start up a production line and hires people to make widgets?

If he only put the money in the factory, and no work (for example, he hired somebody to set the whole thing up on his behalf), indeed, he morally shouldn't be compensated for this.

Again, I readily admit it is unpractical in a capitalist society.

	15-12-2004 20:37									#79
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor If he only put the money in the factory, and no work (for example, he hired somebody to set the whole thing up on his behalf), indeed, he morally shouldn't be compensated for this. Again, I readily admit it is unpractical in a capitalist society.

Let's ignore the practicality issue for now. I just want to flesh out the morality thing here. Here's what we're working with right now as I see it. Please correct me if you see something wrong:

- value is created from a combination of capital and labour
- we have a widget factory where some people make widgets, and some people sell them
- these people are labour, and should rightfully be compensated for their efforts
- none of these jobs would exist if the capital wasn't there to build the factory. That is, no one is making these widgets, and no one is selling the now non-existant widgets
- even though the capital made the production and sale possible in the first place - just as the labour did - it should not be compensated in any way
- this is moral because ???

	15-12-2004 20:51									#80
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki - this is moral because ???

Because THEY say so.


The conveniently forget that by their own theory capital ( which has value) is a RESULT of prior labor. But somehow accumulating the value of your labor and making use of that labor value is BAD BAD BAD. No its better that the money NOT be invested.

In this conceptual model the ONLY use of money or capital is consumption, sicne there is no way that you could set it aside to provide an income later or invest it in hope of gain

	15-12-2004 20:52									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Let's say someone worked for someone else and there was no capital involved. That laborer produced 10 widgets. Should he be compensated money for 10 widgets?

If there's no capital involved, why is he working for someone else?

	15-12-2004 20:53									#82
	Tired of ads?

I don't think communism says that the owner of capital should not be compensated.

I think the issue Marx points out is that a system is created under the private ownership of capital in which large sections of the population, being unable to have their own means of production, can only live by using someone elses capital to create value. Under that situation, the capital owners set the terms of the relationship, and since they are driven by a desire to acquire wealth, will short change the laborers. The simple idea being why the workers in a facotry producing luxuries should be unable to afford themselves the very goods they produce. If they were being favorably compensated for the value they create, should they not be able to afford the goods they create?

The notion of communal ownership is that the aim of the capital owners is not profit, but providing enough for the community so that each member is free of the exploitative relationship caused by having to toil using someone elses labor.

	15-12-2004 20:54									#83
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Flubber Because THEY say so. The conveniently forget that by their own theory capital ( which has value) is a RESULT of prior labor. But somehow accumulating the value of your labor and making use of that labor value is BAD BAD BAD. No its better that the money NOT be invested. In this conceptual model the ONLY use of money or capital is consumption, sicne there is no way that you could set it aside to provide an income later or invest it in hope of gain

While Capital can be the result of prior labor (the state can create capital at will), it need not be at all your labor.

	15-12-2004 20:56									#84
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki - this is moral because ???

Because hard work should be the source of financial rewards.

It is a pretty common streak of thought in the west: hard work should be rewarded. Doing nothing shouldn't. If the owner of the capital does nothing, this lazy bum shouldn't strip the workers of their hard-earned money!

It is actually a pretty conservative morals, that considers work as the sole source of money that is really legitimate, more than any form of leeching. It is just that today's conservatives have interiorised capitalism so much that they only mind welfare-leeching (which I also oppose: welfare leechers strip money from those who make it, and from those who actually need welfare - they're a weight on the productive and the welfare system)

	15-12-2004 20:56									#85
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Not quite. Value is created by a combination of capital and labour. Even the shovel of a ditch-digger can be considered as "capital". And with such a capital, the ditch-digger produces far more value than what he would produce with his bare hands.

That's what I said. Capital creates value.

quote: If you live off your capital, your income (value) isn't magically created: it's generated by somebody's work. And we live in a system that justifies the fact that capital owners get a part of the value created by those who work with their capital.

1) In principle, you could easily have capital that produces value without someone's work. Or that produces value on its own, but requires someone's work to prevent it from breaking; for instance, a power plant - it isn't really increasing the value of someone's labor, someone's labor is merely keeping it running. Or a robotic assembly line, with people there in case something goes wrong.

And even in the case where it does merely increase the value (or amount, which is the same thing) of the stuff produced by someone's labor, it is still producing value and there's nothing wrong living off of it - you pay the person the value of his or her labor, which is DIFFERENT from the value of the stuff that comes out.

	15-12-2004 20:57									#86
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki But he built the structure! Without him, there is no structure and no one is producing and selling widgets.

Well, building the structure and providing the start up capital are two different things.

quote: You said yourself that value is created by a combination of capital and labour. The capital built the structure, the labour fabricates and sells the widgets. If both parts are necessary to create the value, why would only one part be compensated?

Capital is a tool that allows more capital, and then value throught labor, to be created.

Unlike Spiff, I don;t view there to be a moral problem with compensating the provider of the capital.

	15-12-2004 21:01									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor If he only put the money in the factory, and no work (for example, he hired somebody to set the whole thing up on his behalf), indeed, he morally shouldn't be compensated for this.

Money is a very freely exchangeable form of work. He did work, and then TRADED the products of that work for money, which he then TRADED that money for the factory (or for the labor that produced the factory, which is the same thing).

	15-12-2004 21:01									#88
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker you pay the person the value of his or her labor, which is DIFFERENT from the value of the stuff that comes out.

So you agree with Kid's understanding of value? That labour has an inherent value in itself, regardless of how much money the outcome of the labour brings? You'd be giving more pay to a ditch-digger with a showel than to a ditch-digger with modern machinery?

	15-12-2004 21:02									#89
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap Well, building the structure and providing the start up capital are two different things.

Nope. See above.

	15-12-2004 21:06									#90
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Originally posted by GePap Well, building the structure and providing the start up capital are two different things. Nope. See above.

No, if the provider of the capital got it on a loan, or from inheritance. Then the individual did either no work or very minimal work.

Hence they are NOT the same.