Waste Of World
Competition is wasteful
This is obvious. The backwardness of supply and demand is one way this occurs. A company produces goods or delivers a service IF it is profitable. It stops production when the goods are not being sold. What is produced after the reduction in demand is wasted. Put this together with 5 or 6 other companies each vieing for a place in the market and you find a situation where one part of the globe is becoming obese with the surplus commodity while the rest of the world starves because their market isn't seen as profitable. Yet, as in terms of food, there is enough to support more people than it actually does, but is unable to be utilised because of the restrictions placed upon it by the laws of capital. The more open the competition the more which is wasted. Competition, being an essential part of free market capitalism, is doomed to produce more than is needed simply because A. It doesn't fully know the target market and B. It has no control over what it's competition produces.
To the supporters of such a system or a variation of it;
ARE YOU F****** STUPID???
Our resources are limited enough without producing double the quantity we actually need, all for the sake of an individuals bank balance. This is an unavoidable outcome in the capitalist system. You either support this method or you don't,
YOU CANNOT CHANGE IT WITHOUT REVOLUTIONIZING THE ENTIRE SYSTEM
- Martin Da Yoica's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
That does seem to have happened, to some degree, with
agriculture in the US -- skyrocketing production driving down prices, which meant more food needed to be sold to make the same profit. Until we stepped in with agriculture subsidies.
In some other countries, over-reliance on a single crop (generally to export) has proven costly when global prices plummeted or when some blight struck that particular crop.
I don't know about elsewhere but in the US the "buy local" movement is becoming increasingly popular.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Its become popular here too
I think buy local would work with food but I can't see a way it would work well with other commodities. My main point though, that twice as much is produced simply because no one regulates what is used for a particular commodity, extends to everything we produce or provide (except monopolies) under this system. It is the basis of our economy. My question is how can this be reformed without changing the system itself?
And yet the billions in China and south Asia
...where capitalism is on the rise, are eating much better than they ever have before. Go to the places where there is scarcity of food, and you'll find corrupt, incompetent governments more often than not-- see Zimbabwe
, for example, where the government attempts to exert complete control over the economy in order to benefit itself.
No thanks.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
sigh of relief
thanks, skymutt.
A very troubling diary. I wasn't going to comment as the diary just left me staring in such total disbelief, that I had to rub my dried out tongue (from prolonged gazing with a gaping jaw) against the roof of my mouth and snap out of it.
But just when I start to wonder if the Left of Center is truly as oblivious as such caricature diaries like this would lead one to believe, you break through the surreal madness with a shot of common sense.
A sincere thanks. :)
The fundementals
of capitalism are capital (obviously) and the free market (or illusion of). Putting aside the human aspect, focus on the enviromental. The market for any goods will eventually saturate. When this happens anything produced afterwards will either sell for well below its production price or not get sold atall. The fact that supply and demand is a backwards indicator is bad enough in terms of one business (production of a certain commodity stops only when the profit is not being returned) let alone the current state of things. By the time this snail indicator moves into action it is usually too late and then the lowering of price, waste ect ect.
This may seem surreal to someone living in a dream world, but the fact is undeniable, if you produce more than you need the chances are you waste what you don't need. What is the free market if not one with winners and losers? Unfortunetly by wasting this world, we all lose.
I think the disconnect is how to respond to the indicator
(which isn't necessarily snail -- some markets respond very quickly to fluctuations in demand). Specifically, while many might agree with you that there is waste and overproduction in a (more-or-less) capitalistic system, they might also contend that there would be as much or more waste and inefficiency in, for example, a command economy.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
More communist BS.
And where is this law written? Has the market for food saturated yet? Has the market for water saturated yet? Has the market for shelter saturated yet?
Also not true. The demand almost never drops completely to zero so the production is never really wasted, except perhaps for preishable items I suppose. Even so, waste of that sort is clearly an exception and not the rule.
Nobody runs a business like this. More and more things are moving to just in time production based on actual in hand orders. Businesses are NOT producing huge amounts of anything without already having a good handle on the demand for the product as determined by actual orders or the rate of orders in some appropriate timeframe specific to the product in question. The timeframe is expected to be short enough to avoid the exact type of prodution overruns you are discussing.
For things which are sold as commodities in department stores, for example, no store is going to order or stock more than they believe they can reasonably sell based on the rate of sales they are seeing through their checkout lines. They have a very decent handle on how much they are selling of every product and therefore have a good basis for determining how many they need to order to meet the demand being placed on their operation. The cash registers in these stores are essentially a direct indicator of demand per unit time.
As their inventory is exhausted they place new orders with the producers which match their expected demand based on daily/weekly/monthly sales rates as actually observed at the cash registers. This in turn gives the producers a very accurate indicator of the aggregate demand across all such stores. If the stores start seeing a drop in demand they react within whatever their reordering period is (days/weeks/months) to reduce the inflow of inventory for the affected item. When the stores reduce their orders (in aggregate) it is very easily seen within the order processing systems on the producer side. You can be sure that these producers are watching the order rate very closely and notice any significant changes. As a result they are able to throttle back production, as necessary, to not significantly outstrip the demand.
This is true, but of course as I have shown above the capitalist system does not produce huge production overruns, generally speaking. I am sure that you may be able to find a few examples here and there, but overall it doesn't happen. So while this may be a true statement it is effectively a moot one.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
underproduction is as wasteful as overproduction
I think the basic problem here is which side you err on -- because you will err. If you are deathly afraid of overproduction, then you will error on the side of underproduction.
That is just as wasteful as overproduction.
The existing system seems to aim for perfection, meaning that sometimes it underproduces (sometimes a product is sold out, causing consumers to drive all over town looking for that item) and sometimes it overproduces (as described above).
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Underproduction in a capitalist system can certainly
occur but such circumstances are self correcting by the very nature of the system. I think most of the "sold out" examples in recent years for things that are insanely popular like iPhones, XBOX 360, etc are due to limits of manufacturing capacity than to the system misjudging the demand for such things.
The stores knew that the XBOX for example was going to be super hot. They were pre-ordering them as a means of trying to gauge just how much demand there was going to be. This sounds like a system that is about as responsive as you can make it. I'm not really sure how they could have done any better, do you?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I think I may be getting off the reservation as far as the
original subject, but an interesting thing that you see in super markets as they have gotten much more efficients at knowing what you want to buy before you buy it. That bar code on your key chain gives important information about your preferences before you even walk down your local grocers isle. As such, they don't have as many problems with waste.
Another example is found in the presence of online shopping. If I log onto amazon right now, it's going to give me items that I'm likely to buy based upon what type of webpages I've visited in the past. Intuitively and in practice, more information means more efficient markets.
Also creepy
This has a creepy big brotherish feel to it. "They" are monitoring all of our purchasing habits. While there is an upside, it still feels........ like I am being watched 0.0
It is no longer, 'To be or not to be.' but, "I am what I buy." *
* this message has been monitored for future valuable target marketing data to be provided to anyone that wants to sell you what you didn't know you wanted, but will soon discover that can't live without
It is the economy, stupid.
I'm a privacy advocate
,but I'm sort of ambivalent to this. Yes, retailers can know quite a bit about you, but in the same token, you can know quite a bit about them (think tprice ransparency as far insurance, airlines fares, or gas goes in your area on the internet). It's the information age. You just need to go in with your eyes wide open as a consumer and know that if Borders ever "values you as a customer," then you're spending too much on books.
Just as an aside on privacy, most people are perfectly comfortable giving up that right. EZPass can track the movements of anybody who signs up. I'm not sure I quite understand the phenomenon and I'll never give into government on the matter, but people tend to cede privacy in so-called private transactions.
To my naked eye
..the supermarkets who don't use the discount cards do just as good a job at inventory management at the ones who do-- for instance, Albertson's did as well without a card as Ralph's and Von's did with one, and I actually preferred Albertson's for my grocery shopping when I lived out west, even though I had no objection to carrying the discount card. Here in Columbus, I use Meijer, a regional supermarket without a card program, over Kroger, a national chain with a card program. I find that Meijer has better prices and equivalent selection. A third regional grocery with a card program, Big Bear, went out of business.
Heck, Walmart doesn't use a card, and they are renowned for their inventory practices. I think it's highly questionalble that bar coding customers is helping supermarkets much at all, given relative performance of card and non-card stores. Obviously, without a card, they still are able to electronically track what is bought via their checkout scanner, just not who in particular buys it. It just seems like knowing who buys what is of minimal extra value to the supermarket.
On the other hand, when I'm in another part of the country camping or whatever, I actively seek out stores without cards, such as Walmart. I think Safeway hurts it's business in particular by having a card plan. Usually, the clerk will scan a store card if you mention you are from out of town, but rather than take a chance, I prefer to shop in a store where I know I'm not going to have to pay exorbitant prices if I don't have the proper "don't rape me" card.
Conclusion: ditch the customer card programs, supermarkets!
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
humans aren't omniscient
We sometimes choose a less than optimal path (meaning that we wasted potential).
so what?
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
crisis of overproduction
If you are interested in theories of "capitalistic crises" check out Kevin Carson's "Studies in Mutualist Political Economy
". The problem that you describe seems to be similar to what he called "the crisis of overproduction", but he sees a different root cause. His treatment of this subject is quite sophisticated and he examines the systemic effects of this problem.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
I enjoy Carson
Carson is a very smart man, and I try to read him when I can.
Mutualism seems to be the "fairest" way to run an economy, but I fear it doesn't scale too well.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
modular mutualism
Many of Carson's arguments are specifically against scale (in economic organization)--the mutualist vision is very much one of small producers connected by markets.
That's not to say that large-scale, formal organizaiton is incompatible with mutualism (Toyota may be a reasonable model for mutualism)--only that we would have to be willing to allow small groups to "seceed" from any particular economic organization (and from society in general, I suppose, if they could make it on their own)
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
fundamentals?
OK.
LOL.
Communist BS.
Even if I accept that the capitalist system is inefficient it is still FAR MORE EFFICIENT than a centralized communist system. There is no way that a centralized government can make accurate assessments or predictions of the supply requirements for any economy bigger than a few people.
But I don't accept your faux premise to begin with. There is no way that we produce twice as much of anything than we need. Markets do not dry up over night leaving us with wasted surplus products. As demand for a give product drops the producers inevitably see the drop and reduce production independently of one another. If demand drops significantly the producers will drop their prices to recoup their expenses which will eventually drive some producers out of the market and thus reduce production even further. This works smoothly for any market of reasonable size and number of producers.
For example, lets consider buggy whips. There was once a very high demand for buggy whips compared today's market. Is there some warehouse somewhere stuffed with all those surplus buggy whips? Of course not. Why not? Because the market reduced the number of producers of buggy whips automatically to meet the demand. The may have been a glut for some time while this occured but unless demand drops completely to zero the glut is eventually utilized, contrary to your assertion that it will be wasted.
It is rare for the demand for any product to drop precipitously to zero which is why your analysis is fatally flawed.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
what do you suggest to prevent waste?
It seems that you want all goods to be pre-ordered by the consumer, so that producers don't accidentally "overproduce".
Why is this incompatible with a market economy? Presumably, producers would jump at the prospects of having a guaranteed market for their goods, and would be willing to charge a lower price in exchange for this security, reflecting the reduced risk of wasteful production (assuming that the administrative costs wouldn't swamp these savings).
Apparently, consumers prefer to have the flexibility of buying the item as they decide that they need it, rather than pre-ordering everything. Consider how long it takes to build a car -- first the iron ore needs to be mined, then the steel needs to be produced, then it needs to be cut and assembled into a car, etc. This entire process probably takes a couple of years (without considering the design process and factory tooling). Are we supposed to order our cars two years in advance? What if we mis-judged our future desires? Wouldn't that be wasteful?
Also, how would you deal with the day to day fluctuation in demand? This commodity-market system that you disparage is quite capable of storing up excess in times of low demand, so that it can be sold when demand rises or production drops. By your "made to order" system, it seems that every worker would have to report to the factory every day to be told how much there is for him to produce (do I work 10 hours today, or only 4?). It would be impossible to plan how to use our time -- that would be wasteful.
FWIW, Harley Davidson only produce bikes that have been pre-ordered
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
You're exactly right
Capitalism, by definition will be wasteful. Cooperation is always less wasteful than competition. The problem is that the only way to timely satisfy the demand for widgets is to be wasteful.
In the end this is a human nature problem. Your average person would rather screw over his neighbor than work with him to create a better world. Don't expect it to be fixed anytime soon.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
capitalism is primarily cooperative, competition is secondary
The primare act of trade is cooperative. Competition only becomes a factor when we are deciding who to cooperate with.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
A dose of optimism
I don't believe this is true. You might be right if you said that the average person would rather screw over someone he does not know than work with him to create a better world. But his neighbor? I don't think so.
The internet is making the world a much smaller place, and it is becoming easier and easier to have "neighbors" who live across the world from you. Hopefully you will be pleasantly surprised - things might be "fixed" sooner than you might imagine.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
:-)
It is the economy, stupid.
Poor choice of words
No, maybe not his neighbor, but someone he doesn't know. Bad choice of words on my part. Although, some neighbors warrant bad treatment -- like one of mine.
Think of how you can't stand political group X or Y. Now realize that you know people in this group who are good friends of yours. For instance, if I know a few people who are very far to the right. I know they are good people that just disagree with me on politics. So obviously there must be some part of the group of people in X or Y that are actually good people if you'd get to know them. Democrats aren't all traitorous, terrorist-loving communists, and Republicans aren't all heartless, theocratic fascists. In fact, both groups are largely composed of good people who you'd be glad to have a drink with.
Actually, I think the Internet makes things worse. People will say and do things under the cover of anonymity or "pseudonymity" that they wouldn't do in public under their own name. It's much easier to harass someone via email, IM, text message, etc. than it is by phone and still easier by phone than by face-to-face communication.
I hope you're right, but I'm not holding my breath.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
FWIW, Marginal Theory of Value supplanted labor theory of value
sometime around the end of the 19th century, in case you didn't get the memo :)
LOL.
BTW, Kal
please switch back to yellow... :-)
It's also good for agorists, mutualists, left libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, Georists/geolibertarians and general individualists.
;)
So black reprersents Big Government Anarchists?
there seem to be a few of those on this board...
Worst. Anarchist. Ever.
You just don't get it man.
My man!!! :)
There's the REAL Ka1igu1a!!!
I feel that most people who claim the mantle of anarchist in common vernacular are just socialists without direction.
Devil's advocate...
Milton Friedman certainly didn't claim the mantle of "anarchist," but when asked about them, he wished them well because "it's the direction we should be headed."
Kal gives the anarchists a good name (though I think he's been less cheery over the last month or so ;-)).
His son David is an anarchist
All a market anarchism really boils down to for the most part is non-monopoly enforcement of law and security
Sounds like a very pure and strict form
of libertarianism ala crazy uncle Rothbard.
Actually it IS that.
And I mean "crazy uncle"
as a term of the utmost endearment.
Ha...
I could hear Kal switching to "Black bar" as that phrase popped off of your keyboard.
But it's true
I like Rothbard. I admire his clarity and conviction. He spent many years working toward his final position. He could no longer accept any excuses for the state. It just doesn't help too much in mainstream discussion.
But my inner Rothbard is alive and well.
Anarcho-Liberal more than Rothbard
I had a post recently on it at Freedom Democrats
Good stuff.
I remember watching that video a while back. I like those avant garde discussion topics.
I have to admit though that I'm a little weak on game theory. I understand it when it's spoken to me but I'm a little weak in speaking about it and applying it.
Not enough practice or time spent studying it.
Explain that for me....
I read it as Libertarians who advocate anti-trust laws or maybe don't advocate the formation of the legal entities known as "corporations," but I doubt that's correct.
No, no
It just means an enforcement of property rights for the most part.
The corporation thing is a sticky area.
Left libertarians tend to be a little more anti-corporate...but still free market.
All you have to do is remove the rights of corporations. It's the only real difference.
Enforcement of property rights......
Hmm....seems like a novel concept. It might be something I can get behind.
I'll have to read Kal's link ;-).
Do that. :)
And yeah, read Ka1's posting.
I'll admit that he's a little more into abstract and deeper level topics on the cutting edge of libertarian philosophy.
I just hide my hatred for the state a little better. (giggles)
BTW, check your email, QB
I haven't changed all that much
But with the utter failure of the libertarian-conservative axis, I'm basically oing tback more to the original roots of libertarianism as opposed to putting any more faith in the 20th century variant that was conflated with minarchism/classical liberalism.
I think anarchism can be a stable framework for liberty...i don't think minarchy is stable framework for liberty over time.
The internet is mostly an anarchist global communications network. Imagine if the control was given over to a minarchist central authority. Do you think, say, 50 years later, that central authority would still be minarchist?.
In market anarchism, you could still have corporate structures, there would just be no "corporate veil" state legal protection.
Well, bring on the counter economics
and let the good times roll! :)
To me the idea of minarchism is a damage control POV.
I do still consider myself a classical liberal though.
It's broad enough to entail a wide variety of individualist opinion.
The problem with minarchism and why it can look bad to a stricter POV is that the Constitution wasn't minarchist ENOUGH and left itself wide open for continual interpretation for more power.
part of the problem there
was that it was a compromise between people like Adams and people Jefferson.
I'm under no delusions for today...
but I also imagine that, say, in the 23rd century, anarchist society will view us as backward in our political structures as we view medieval Europe today
It's possible.
Too bad we won't be there.
:)
BTW, Kal, did you read this today?
Not sure if you frequent Cafe Hayek...
Good article by Boudreaux on "shilling for Industry"
Occasionally...
if i have the time...
i think GM's entire economics department blog in some capacity
Less Cheery...
only when i post over at The Ozone...
btw, i did compose a a recent diary in response to one of
your recent diaries on taxes...
On Utilitarian Models of Income taxation
I liked it.
I gave it a point and read Mankiw's paper on it. I actually thought about it while driving today. I was listening to an EconTalk episode by Mankiw.
I was posting much yesterday or the day before so I didn't comment. Sorry. :(
Speaking of labor theory of value and
Carson upthread, did you ever read the symposium
on Carson's book on mutualism at Mises?
Pretty heavy stuff.
I've read some of his work
The stuff I read, he updated Mutualism with a marginal Theory of value to make it relevant
LOL.
Good to hear. Because I thought the way he tried to make the labor theory of value fit into his idea got him a lot of flak from the Miseseans.
One of the critiques called him Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde because of it.
The stuff I read wasn't hosted at Mises
it was somewhere else...i can't remember, might have at his blog, but he does have a bunch of work floating around the internet cloud...
I'm not a mutualist, but in my non-monopy enforcement world, people could certainly cooperate in a mutualist enforcement model.
I didn't get the memo either
They've yet to convince me.
The true value of a good is equal to the labor used to make that good. This seems to be really self-evident to me. One could argue that goods don't have any true value, but then that sidesteps the question.
I believe in the labor theory of value, but I don't think that it really means anything. Because a widget took 10 minutes of labor to make, that doesn't imply anything about what price it should fetch on the open market. I suppose I differentiate between price and value in that way. Price has no relation to value other than value will generally be a lower bound on price.
To be honest, I am yet again of two minds on the subject. I suppose I would agree with Marx in theory that any wage paid for work that is less than the value of the object made is theft, but I fear an economy built around that principle simply wouldn't scale. That is to say a certain amount of theft is required in society. Therefore any study of the subject isn't much more than intellectual masturbation.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
You don't need the memo. Think about it...
Before something seems "self-evident" to you, you should look for counter examples and they abound.
Baseball Players vs. (most) doctors...let alone pharmacists and so on.
Why do similar cars from the same plant cost different.? Even tough the time and materials involved may be the same?
Why do baseball cards from the same pack have different values?
Why is a painting by Picasso more valuable than one painted by a no name artist?
You can keep thinking up real examples. You will see that value is totally subjective and depends on people's wants, wishes, needs and values and yes, SCARCITY. There is no standard value attached to anything.
That's why I could spend 20 hours honing a ring to put a cubic zarconium rock into and it will be worth less than a plastic ring made in a few seconds at factory in China with a real diamond in it.
Whether you use marginal theory or subjective theory you generally arrive at the same conclusion.
Then rethink the rest of your post.
A few Q's
To be honest, my knowledge of economic theory (or economics in general) is lacking, but sometimes those with a baser knowledge can shed new light on the issue.
Here are a few Q's:
1. What about 'initial cost'? Doesn't that value need to be based on something? If it basically copies the worth of something identical already on the market, then what about new/unique items? There is no 'demand' to base this value on, is there?
2. What if cost of manufacturing shifts but the demand doesn't? Say, what if an alchemist figured out how to make gold from lead for cheap, and the demand stayed constant? Wouldn't the price/value shift because of cheaper manufacturing cost? In other words, is it not possible that cheaper manufacturing (such as industialization's assembly line) will bring down costs and thus also prices?
3. Isn't it possible that both are at play, that dividing these up as two opposing theories is an 'Either/Or' fallacy? Could both be at play depending on the context or situation?
Just a few inquiries to better understand these ideas.
A few A's
1. That value is subjective and based on a variety factors like need and scarcity. What this rule of value does is eliminate basic questions that don't get to the heart of the matter.
Silly example: If a java script isn't working in one of your posts, you don't look in the part that carries the label you see on the web page, you look in the script.
What this does is helps understand the process but it doesn't give real data...it can't. It's explanatory...not a formula to create or assess value.
2. In your (unrealistic) hypothetical, the price gold would plummet. This actually happened with aluminum...so to speak. It used to be worth more than gold in the 1800s until science figured out how to produce it more efficiently and in greater quantity. Salt had much, much higher value in Roman times than it does now as well.
But the point here is in the subjectivity (or marginal value). If gold could be easily had, it would be worth much, much less.
I could probably explain this all better...but I can't put it together right now.
3. No. The subjectivity and marginal aspect explain the labor value. Labor value is not a constant source of info. It depends on marginal cost and subjective value.
A few more
1. How can scarcity (if it is new and unique, I assume that means it is very scarce so the value could be infinite unless properly tied down to something such as cost) and need (same rule--personal computers were once new, but not really needed in any way save for a few specialized industries, at least at the time) be criteria factors for value when neither exists if something is new and unique.
I don't follow your example, b/c I'm not a programmer or IT guy either. Can you phrase it in a literary way? Perhaps in Shakespearean terms. :-) Seriously, I understand that it is not a formula, but it still seems initial cost serves as a better guide that supply/demand in these circumstances.
2. I understand that the supply side shifts in my admittedly unrealistic example, but it still shows problems with marginal value. If cost of production--labor--goes down (my assembly line argument is a better illustration of this), then so does the value (price). This is only common sense to me. Please help me understand my error here.
3. Not really an explanation, just begging the question. Why?
a few more back to you
1. If I understand your question:
Things don't happen vaccuums. Firstly, the cost of components or ingredients is reflected in the subjective or marginal value for these items based on alternative uses. Trial, error and innovation to bring these costs down is involved. Likewise the price for a new idea or product is also based in part on the subjective of substitutes...but more broadly, it's trial error in part as well. It's a little confusing but I that's clear. My explanation may be a little off.
2. No. No real error. Just an omission of sorts. We'd kinds need to know why labor cost would go down. What else is in play? This one is a little more dicey.
3. Next post
Because labour is a commodity...
...the same as any other. The cost of production is what determines the initial value. Supply and demand (equally applicaple to labour) is what fluxuates the real value. More jobs than there is people, people win. More people than there are jobs, capital wins. Which is the most common nomena in todays economy?
I think I agree with this for the most part.
If my the underlined part you mean that when there are more jobs than people wages go up, and when there are more people than jobs wages go down. This is a reflection of labor being a commodity in a free market.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
#3
because the value of labor is based on subjective and marginal factors and alternative uses of the economic context in question. It's all relative.
(No subject)
Hey Specter, why so blue? (As in your bar) :)
(Apologies for the off topic comment.)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The inaccuracies of the English language
Did you even read my post?
Obviously, because the demand for certain cards are more than others. That doesn't imply anything about the true value of the card, the car, the painting, etc.
Perhaps we're talking past each other. I find more and more that the limits of the English language end up obfuscating rather than illuminating the meaning of my words. I feel like Proudhon -- property is theft; property is liberty; property is impossible.
Depending on your definition of value, I agree with your statement:
What is a piece of cardboard with a picture of Tom Brady on it intrinsically/truly worth? The amount of labor undertaken to produce that piece of cardboard. How much is it worth to you? That depends on many factors.
As I said in the previous post, objects do, in my opinion, have a true value. That being said, I don't believe there is much of an application of such knowledge outside philosophical discussions. The true value of an object should not dictate at what price it is sold, but one would be foolish to sell something for less than what he paid for it.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Again, Stinerman
And as I said in my previous post:
No, they don't. It's all based subjectivity and marginal value.
There is no "inherent value" in anything based on some measurable constant standard as the labor theory of value would imply. I explained why the labor of value isn't valid. You still didn't explain why it is.
But like Ka1igu1a said above, this discussion was settled over a hundred years ago. Proudhon and his quasi kindred spirit, Bastiat, despite their being seated together on the anti-royal left side of the Assembly, had many disagreements about nuances of property and value and whatnot in the 1840s. What held both back from convincingly winning their tit for tat debates was that they based value on the classical model which implied some intrinsic and inherent value in all things. It wasn't until the 1880s that marginal and subjective value began to properly be understood. And it was indeed a revolution. It changed everything. It settled a lot of basic disagreements while totally discrediting Marx as some authority on economics.
There's far too much yellow in this thread!
It makes it hard to read since it is so bright! (And I don't mean intellectually ... he he ... although that would be an appropriate term as well I guess)
This thread is like the libertarian version of a mutual admiration society, or something. Not that it is a problem, I just thought it was funny and wanted to point it out. :)
Maybe you guys can get a room or something next time? He he. Man, I got a million of 'em. I kill me. *chuckles*
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree