- 04 Mar 2012 00:17
#13910358
No. Economics is about producing what people, the producers included, want. If I spent years studying, let's say, xenobiology, it would be less helpful to others and so have less value.
Wait, I just reread your argument and discovered that, if I sum it like this:
, I can see that your argument is utterly empty. Even though socialism is supposed to exist entirely contrary to capitalism, you can't simply say, 'that aspect of capitalism is unneeded' and wash your hands of explanation. You provided no reasoning for how calculation is supposed to be done otherwise. Why, practically speaking, should everyone have the same value, or, in other words, the same degrees of variation of labor costs as in capitalism but with some theoretical base that's based on some unreasoned point of objective wage?
So, it doesn't matter if there's a surplus, or lack of, a certain job that people need/don't need; all that matters is the differences between people of the same job?
So you're giving people more money for having luck and better machinery, but you're not doing it because more of them are desired? Even ignoring the troubles that this will cause along every single point of finding the cheapest method to manufacture capital goods when there's a plethora of variety for every single step, with different quality and rarity for resources and labor methods, this is just silly for even the really minor calculation argument of organizing labor. With every career having the same total payment based on labor hours, with those values distributed among each career based on the individual's output, you're saying that we have absolutely no need to see where effort put in is below gain produced.
You're also saying that wages are provided by both the student and the teacher at the same time, even though nothing is being produced in the interim but potential, and that makes no sense!
That's the point: I was trying to make your calculations as stupidly simple as possible. If that is impossible, then you fail. You also fail for not comprehending.
So an idiot should have the same 'wages' as a genius, taking resources from other produces to the same degree (as long as they're not in the same exact career, when their skills of architecture are objectively compared. ) ... because he should have the same wages?
It's actually quite simple:
Just money: people like to talk about how they're deprived because the capitalists have millions of dollars worth of resources; however, most of those resources, simply as a matter of being owned, do not deprive those people. A factory can be owned, but it's not like I'm poor, in the resource sense, simply because a factory is worthless by itself; a factory is not wealth but the producer of wealth. How can I convert a factory into furniture? All I can do to be more wealthy is to have the furniture PRODUCED by the factory.
2000/person: Capitalists have money in bank accounts. This is, of course, the surplus that should be entitled to the workers. Divide that by the number of people, and everyone will have a few grand. It'll take a long time for that kind of money to return to the people again.
So...inflation reduces the ability for capitalists to collect wealth? I think you're trying to make the argument as erratic as possible to avoid making a solid stance.
Then don't ever mention the generally unrelated point of capitalism being too broken for even calculation to save it.
Because the amount of traffic produced at intersections is objective; the averaging of those numbers works it's only one stage of 'production' (ie, cars move, then people move; then start the whole thing again); and the issue of variable driver and pedestrian skill levels vs. fuel costs of standing still is relatively minor when the interval of the production is less than a minute; and you cannot rationally tell how much people want one good vs a different good of different quality while walking people want to walk and driving people only wanting to drive. Basically, you can't calculation need in relation to other needs, thus supply in relation to other supplies and all the problems of distribution that this produces. You can calculate between drivers and walkers only wanting their respective goals, while an economy has too much variety.
I don't think that, objectively speaking, the value of the work I do changes based on how many other people are currently trained or willing to do it. This only matters when I have to compete with others for a job in a free market, when we, in an overcrowded market of architects or doctors or chicken feeders or whatever, are willing to work for less, since the alternative would be financial ruin through unemployment.
No. Economics is about producing what people, the producers included, want. If I spent years studying, let's say, xenobiology, it would be less helpful to others and so have less value.
Wait, I just reread your argument and discovered that, if I sum it like this:
Value of proportions (for labor) doesn't exist because it's only used in a system with that condition embedded in it.
, I can see that your argument is utterly empty. Even though socialism is supposed to exist entirely contrary to capitalism, you can't simply say, 'that aspect of capitalism is unneeded' and wash your hands of explanation. You provided no reasoning for how calculation is supposed to be done otherwise. Why, practically speaking, should everyone have the same value, or, in other words, the same degrees of variation of labor costs as in capitalism but with some theoretical base that's based on some unreasoned point of objective wage?
According to the model I've quoted, only based on productivity/efficiency relative to average.
So, it doesn't matter if there's a surplus, or lack of, a certain job that people need/don't need; all that matters is the differences between people of the same job?
So you're giving people more money for having luck and better machinery, but you're not doing it because more of them are desired? Even ignoring the troubles that this will cause along every single point of finding the cheapest method to manufacture capital goods when there's a plethora of variety for every single step, with different quality and rarity for resources and labor methods, this is just silly for even the really minor calculation argument of organizing labor. With every career having the same total payment based on labor hours, with those values distributed among each career based on the individual's output, you're saying that we have absolutely no need to see where effort put in is below gain produced.
You're also saying that wages are provided by both the student and the teacher at the same time, even though nothing is being produced in the interim but potential, and that makes no sense!
Why are you trying to have equal skill levels? No one will be equally skilled. You're asking me to do the impossible. They also don't need to cost the same to train. I don't see why you find this relevant at all.
That's the point: I was trying to make your calculations as stupidly simple as possible. If that is impossible, then you fail. You also fail for not comprehending.
No, what I am saying is that his "value" derives from his work. If he works for an hour, he is compensated for an hour. This includes his time spent studying, whether in high school or in university. That way, he is unable to claim higher value for his skilled labour, because he willingly undertook the responsibility to become skilled, and was paid for it at the expense of the people.
So an idiot should have the same 'wages' as a genius, taking resources from other produces to the same degree (as long as they're not in the same exact career, when their skills of architecture are objectively compared. ) ... because he should have the same wages?
First thing is that I'll tell you I don't know what you mean by 'just money' and that there is only $2000/person.
It's actually quite simple:
Just money: people like to talk about how they're deprived because the capitalists have millions of dollars worth of resources; however, most of those resources, simply as a matter of being owned, do not deprive those people. A factory can be owned, but it's not like I'm poor, in the resource sense, simply because a factory is worthless by itself; a factory is not wealth but the producer of wealth. How can I convert a factory into furniture? All I can do to be more wealthy is to have the furniture PRODUCED by the factory.
2000/person: Capitalists have money in bank accounts. This is, of course, the surplus that should be entitled to the workers. Divide that by the number of people, and everyone will have a few grand. It'll take a long time for that kind of money to return to the people again.
You are intentionally ignoring the inflationary effects of money accumulation and freely available credit. I'm going by real data and also some anecdotal confirmations: The old folks who sit on our city labour council say that 50 years ago, an average worker with a steady job would need not more than a couple of years of savings to buy a home. Now it is 40 years of indentured servitude through paying half of his or her income. This difference is arrived at simply by adding "cheap" credit to the market. If we remove this, we have a return to more affordable goods (consider that wages would have to go up as well, because cheap credit was introduced as a shortsighted remedy to wage reduction). If we remove the ability for massive accumulation, the relative price of everything drops further, and the returns on each hour of labour increase.
So...inflation reduces the ability for capitalists to collect wealth? I think you're trying to make the argument as erratic as possible to avoid making a solid stance.
That's where I can say with certainty that you are wrong. I don't care in the least bit about "winning" or "losing" this argument. At most, I'm interested in having an honest discussion.
Then don't ever mention the generally unrelated point of capitalism being too broken for even calculation to save it.
So, again, why do you care if that green light / red light is determined by a calculation based on maximising profit, or determined by a calculation based on fair compensation, if you are going to be following it anyway?
Because the amount of traffic produced at intersections is objective; the averaging of those numbers works it's only one stage of 'production' (ie, cars move, then people move; then start the whole thing again); and the issue of variable driver and pedestrian skill levels vs. fuel costs of standing still is relatively minor when the interval of the production is less than a minute; and you cannot rationally tell how much people want one good vs a different good of different quality while walking people want to walk and driving people only wanting to drive. Basically, you can't calculation need in relation to other needs, thus supply in relation to other supplies and all the problems of distribution that this produces. You can calculate between drivers and walkers only wanting their respective goals, while an economy has too much variety.
Revenge is like a poison: if you don’t get enough, you’ll wish you were dead.
I's be's trollingz!
I's be's trollingz!