Drace:Yeah bro, factories in the US are totally comparable to the factories in China with 16 hour work shifts, no clean water, no bathroom breaks, poverty wages, poor enviroments, no worker safety, and armed guards.
Getting rid of something bad doesn't mean that something better will replace it.
I Samuel 8
Fri. 10/04/23 18:54 EDT.post #64
Liberté:It sure as Hell involves a lot of coercion against anyone who doesn't accept your conception of property bounds,...You're either mistaking retaliatory violence for initiatory violence, or conflating the two; in either case, it's a failure to discriminate.
Liberté:It sure as Hell involves a lot of coercion against anyone who doesn't accept your conception of property bounds,...
Those things he listed are BS. There's no such thing as 16 hour work shift. Factories work 24 hours in 8 hour shifts. Water comes from the government. You don't need bathroom breaks when you sweat every drop of water. The wages are better than an other unskilled work. All environments with offgassing machinery are "poor". No factory with machinery is "safe".
Marxists only have one argument: look at this example! See how bad it is!
Not only do they fail to identify the root of the problem, but they don't even bother to show that their "solutions" will make anything better, logically or empirically.
I'm on a grand assumption that Drace has never heard of the subjective theory of value, marginal utility, private ownership - as well as property rights, or that people generally partake in contracts or agreements on how payment will be offered that is voluntary between the individuals involved beforehand.
With Drace's logic if I help build 1/20th of a house I'm entitled to 1/20th the profit and/or ownership. If I draw up blueprints for a widget (regardless if I'm being paid to or I plan to sell the blueprints) I'm magically entitled to some portion of the widget being made. (Let's not forget I might be working for a company and the blueprints are made for them.)
If I'm selling drinks at a movie theater I should be entitled to at least half the profit made from that drink! Who else is filling up those cups? Surely not the managers.
They don't have solutions. It's:
1. Abolish property
2. ?
3. Utopia
All of the profit, not half.
They don't have solutions. It's: 1. Abolish property 2. ? 3. Utopia
Haha, exactly.
Drace, at least they aren't starving like they were under Mao.
Drace:no worker safety
Btw, the people in these Chinese factories are wearing safety gloves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsiXi96oENg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_YnaHNcISw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL7Mq7zUWX8
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I'm on a grand assumption that Drace has never heard of the subjective theory of value, marginal utility, private ownership - as well as property rights, or that people generally partake in contracts or agreements on how payment will be offered that is voluntary between the individuals involved beforehand. With Drace's logic if I help build 1/20th of a house I'm entitled to 1/20th the profit and/or ownership. If I draw up blueprints for a widget (regardless if I'm being paid to or I plan to sell the blueprints) I'm magically entitled to some portion of the widget being made. (Let's not forget I might be working for a company and the blueprints are made for them.) If I'm selling drinks at a movie theater I should be entitled to at least half the profit made from that drink! Who else is filling up those cups? Surely not the managers.
Your not even addressing anything I said. The closest thing that comes close is this
"With Drace's logic if I help build 1/20th of a house I'm entitled to 1/20th the profit and/or ownership.'
No bro, if you build 1/20th of a house, you should only get 1/100 of it, but if your the one who invested in the house, but put 0 of the labor, your entitled to all of it minus the wages.
Not that I look up at Mao as a hero, but he made great improvements. Life expectancy almost doubled by the 70s.
As if China, a purely agricultural and backward country, never faced famines before Mao? About 4 famines occured in China in the 18th century alone, killing 45 million. During the Taiping Rebellion, another 65 million. Another famine in 1876-1879 killed 13 million.
China hs a long list of famines in its history...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines#21st_century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation
Not even relevent...
Btw in one of those videos, I love how you didn't see this in the description :p
This is where your job went. Notice the safety requirements: 600 ton press coming your way, no stop button, either "duck" or "move aside" when press comes down. If you are not on your "A" game today you'll lose an arm at best, crushed skull at worst. No problem, there's 20 guys standing outside waiting to take your position. WTF?
Saftey gloves. cool.
Coercion is a species of persuasion. Physically manipulating people is - physically manipulating people. You're taking their intentionality out of the picture. It's a problem for mechanics.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
If 5 workers are producing the train itself, with each contributing 1/5 of the labor, then by what magical phenomenon can you say that they do not respectively earn 1/5 of the profit? Their joined effort created the train.
Few replies:
1. What about the wives that fed the workers breakfast, the cooks that fed them lunch, the janitors that cleaned up after them in the bathrooms, or the bus drivers that drove them to/from work? What share of the profit are they entitled to?
2. Are each of the 5 workers also responsible for 1/5 of a potential loss, in case no one wants to buy the train when it's finally made?
3. Would the 5 workers be entitled to anything if they only did push-ups (hard labor) in their living rooms for five years?
Z.
so you think that physically manipulating people is not persuasion and is coercion?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
No, I think that coercion is tortious persuasion. Physically manipulating people (i.e., dragging them in chains) may be a tort but it is not persuasion, nor is it coercion. It's just physical manipulation. There is no third element to it.
Drace:Life expectancy almost doubled by the 70s.
I could decide which of the following to put, so I'll out both:
1) For who, the party leaders? 2) Not for those who starved to death.
Drace:As if China, a purely agricultural and backward country, never faced famines before Mao?
Was it anarcho-capitalist before Mao?
Drace:Btw in one of those videos, I love how you didn't see this in the description :p
I did read it. Besides, it's obvious from the video.
Yup. It defeated your claim.
That's not relevent. The whole point of exchange is to produce certain goods and trade with others to recieve commodities which you otherwise do not have access to. Thus, the labor involved in sustaining the worker's life is not relevant to the worker's labor himself. The busdriver, the wife, the janitors have a completely different economical/social relation with the worker that is tied with exchange.
They have not at all contributed to the production of the train, why would they be entitled to anything of it?
If they each produced 1/5 of it, they each own 1/5. I don't see why they wouldn't be obliged to responsible for the losses. What else?
? What does this have to do with production?
I really don't even think this hypothetical situation is useful at all for whatever purpose..
I could decide which of the following to put, so I'll out both: 1) For who, the party leaders? 2) Not for those who starved to death.
Average life expectancy. The Chinese population has rather increased rapidly under Mao.
And I already showed that famines were consistant within China's history.
The point was that thse huge famines were not suprising and were due to "communism".
There is much more to saftey than safey gloves...
Drace,
I have a question that might steer this conversation into a more productive arena. What would it take for you to change your mind? What aspect of Marxism do we have to refute for you to reject it? What aspect of anarcho-capitalism do we have to convince you of for you to accept it?
Your not even addressing anything I said.
Yet, are you not refuting that you do not know about what I listed?
Not sure how you come up with 1/100, I would actually like to know how you came up with that number. If I invested in the house, I'm entitled to the house itself, minus wages. If I'm a company that invested in the building of a house, the house is mine after construction, minus wages. That seems obvious seeing I don't know why I would be entitled to the wages of other workers.
The whole point of exchange is to produce certain goods and trade with others to recieve commodities which you otherwise do not have access to. Thus, the labor involved in sustaining the worker's life is not relevant to the worker's labor himself. The busdriver, the wife, the janitors have a completely different economical/social relation with the worker that is tied with exchange.
The division of labor, eh?
Have you read Bohm-Bawerk's Karl Marx and the Close of His System? Or Mises' Marxism Unmasked? Because if you haven't, I'd say you still have some metaphorical leg-work to do on your own before you're in a position to effectively understand the criticisms of Marxism; and it's outright goofy to expect thoroughgoing and systemic criticism from a forum.
Average life expectancy. The Chinese population has rather increased rapidly under Mao. And I already showed that famines were consistant within China's history. ... The point was that thse huge famines were not suprising and were due to "communism".
...
And sweat shops are do to "capitalism."
I think most of the workers in those videos were wearing shoes.
The hypothetical example created was that if a worker put a year of labor onto creating a $5500 train that takes 5 years to create, he is not entitled to 1/5 of it, but instead merely the present value of the goods he produced. He goes on to say that if he did nothing but gather scraps of metal for the project, he deserves perhaps about $900.
There's so much stupidity and confusion in your belligerent post that I refuse to go over it point by point. But I just want to respond to two points.
The validity of the exploitation theory of interest is contingent upon the validity of the the labor theory of value, which states that all value is "created" by labor. Marx claimed that market prices fluctuate around the "true" long-run value, but diverges from it in the short-run because of utility or "use value," which was in his mind a distortion. This theory cannot explain the formation of market prices in anyway whatever.
First, the labor theory of value cannot explain why capital intensive goods (which require less labor for production) usually, if not always, demand higher market prices relative to labor intensive goods. It cannot explain why fiat paper currency, say a $500 bill, is freely exchanged for plasma screen TVs. It's obvious that the degree of labor required to produce the former (the $500 bill) is infinitesimal when compared to the latter. Furthermore, it cannot explain why a bottle of beer is worth so much more at the local New York nightclub relative to the average supermarket, though the beers are physically identical, and may have been produced in the same exact factory.
Such inconsistencies were readily admitted by the classical economists. Here's Ricardo:
I cannot get over the difficulty of the wine which is kept in the cellar for three or four years [i.e., while constantly increasing in exchange value], or that of the oak tree, which perhaps originally had not 2 s. expended on it in the way of labour, and yet comes to be worth £100.
The bottle of beer is worth more at the nightclub relative to the bottle of beer at the supermarket precisely because the former is not identical to the latter. They are different goods. The bottle of beer at the nightclub satisfies a different function, a different desire. A person is willing to play $11 for that beer, for example, because he is in a social setting and wants to "loosen up," or he may want to "fit in," or that club may be exclusive, ect, ect. Therefore, value is entirely subjectively determined, and does not depend on imaginary broad social forces which are exploitative in nature. Consumers don't care how things are produced (the toothpaste does not have a label of socially necessary labor time on it), only that it can satiate subjective desires. Likewise, the wine which was initially placed in the cellar, and the wine which came out of the cellar after four years, are different economic goods.
The economy does not produce commodities; it produces satisfaction.
Next, the theoretical untenability of the LTV, and all cost-of-production theories, is that (a) it confuses causality, and (b) refuses to acknowledge that the factors of production are all co-dependent, that is, that they are independently barren. Labor produces nothing without capital and nature, and capital and nature produce nothing without labor. Marx' exaltation of labor is entirely arbitrary and ideological. He may as well have said that value stems from the fruitfullness of nature. It simply has no theoretical support. Furthermore, to say that a bottle of fine champagne demands a high market price because the factors required to produce it also demand high market prices is pure confusion. Champagne grown in the fields of France demands a high market price because its quality is the finest in the world. And since that region creates such fine champagne (fertile soil, perfect climate, ect), the rent for that land is high. The causal chain runes from consumers => economic system => nature.
The reason why prices fall to their costs is because of the price mechanism and competition (the profit/loss constraint). Excess demand leads to a profit rate above the rate of time preference (profit) which draws resources away from other sectors towards that sector. Those who cannot satiate consumer desires lose access to their resources.
Here's Bohm-Bawerk:
How is it conceivable that, under Socialism, a young oak sapling which will be an oak tree, with the value of an oak tree, in two hundred years, can be made equal in value to an oak full-grown now? The central authority directing the national production must base its entire arrangements and dispositions on a calculation of present and future goods having different values, if its dispositions are not to be quite inept and monstrous. If it does not put less value on future goods it must find that a process which promises a greater number of products in the far future is more remunerative than a process which yields a small number in the present or near future, and it must, accordingly, always turn its productive powers to remote productive ends, however remote they are, as being, technically the most fruitful. The natural consequence would be very much as we have pictured it--misery and want in the present.
And finally, Marx logically deduced (from an incorrect premise) that the rate of profit and real wages will fall together untill there is a crises. Unfortunately for Marx, there is an inverse relationship between the average rate of profit and real wages. As one declines, the other rises, and vice versa. In fact, they may both rise together in the face of technological innovation, or the discovery of new and more efficient capital combinations.
Here's Samuelson:
Thus, when Marx enunciated the law of falling rate of profit and the law of declining real wage, he was proclaiming one law too many
Once we carry out Marx's framework to its logical conclusions, we see that it simply does not explain the real world in anyway whatever. We must, therefore, dismiss it. Profit, to put it simply, is the result of transforming future goods (labor is a future good) into present goods. Individuals place a value premium on present goods realtive to future goods (I prefer a gold chain today over a gold chain 10 days from now, 10 yeas from now, ect); this yeilds surplus value. The belief that there is some objective mystical value, which exists independently of human action, is absurd and has been empirically invalidated. Value is not created; it is expressed.
It does not even correctly reflect the real life situation. Production is done among a joint effort of many workers. Individuals alone do not create a train and opt out because they don't want to wait until its completed. The situation assumes that a single person will be contributing to the whole finished product at a time.
Non sequitur, and no it doesn't. An individual can engage in production, and thousands of individuals can engage in production. The former is forced to employ very direct and unremunerative methods. He can better attain his goals and increase his remuneration if he uses the capitals of others, and works in an organized setting. But production does not depend on society. Economics exists on Crusoe's isolated island.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
On iTunes U, the Mises institute has an excellent lecture series on Marx and Marxism. In particular, it covers Bohm-Bawerk's criticism of Marxism, as well as a fairley detailed refutation of his class-analysis. Maybe you'd be interested in checking it out, Drace.
"Marx on capitalist economics"
While we're at it let me recommend you Kent Hovind on biology and geophysics
"Marx on capitalist economics" While we're at it let me recommend you Kent Hovind on biology and geophysics
I loled.
Though, to be fair, Marx isn't as bad as Hovind. Dr. Dino is in a cranky class unto himself.
The busdriver, the wife, the janitors have a completely different economical/social relation with the worker that is tied with exchange.
What kind of "economical/social" relation is that? So should they or shouldn't they have any share in the profit? How about the salesperson, the marketing person, or the guy who maintains and fixes the machines?
Did they own/buy (or rent) the machines, the land, the building, the steel, and the power needed to build the train? Are they the ones paying the cooks, the janitors, bus drivers, and the guys who fix and maintain the machines, or someone else?
What does this have to do with production?
Nothing. So why would worker A -- who's wrenching nuts on the train -- be entitled to something while worker B who's doing a much harder work of push-ups in his living room (try it -- wrenching is much easier) is entitled to nothing. Shouldn't worker B also receive something?
Poor Drace. It's him versus like eight of us.
Esuric:The economy does not produce commodities; it produces satisfaction.
Brilliant, ridiculously brilliant, the whole response, but this awesome quote especially. In fact this post just became one of my favs.
Thanks. I rushed it (I'm supposed to be working on my presentation >.<), made many grammatical mistakes, and left out some important aspects. He is really confused, and an adequate response would require many many pages.
You've got to hand it to him, he's brave lol.
Drace, allow me to offer some advice. You appear to have already made up your mind about capitalism being the root of all evil and socialism being the solution. If you wish to back up your position in debates you really should learn how capitalism works (not just on a superficial level either) in order to refute the capitalists claims. Try to be as open minded as possible. You might just find out you've been sitting on the wrong side of the fence the entire time!
Everything is a species of everything else. Everything is energy.
The hypothetical example created was that if a worker put a year of labor onto creating a $5500 train that takes 5 years to create, he is not entitled to 1/5 of it, but instead merely the present value of the goods he produced. He goes on to say that if he did nothing but gather scraps of metal for the project, he deserves perhaps about $900. Going by this argument, if the worker did nothing but draw the blue prints, he is not entitled to any of the share, as the present value of a piece of paper with instructions is worthless. It ignores the mechanics of value, and doesn't attribute market factors for the phenomenon of value either, but rather just assumes that prices are governed by the concept of present vs future goods without any evidence and merely an unimaginable example to show the point. Its not a very scientific argument.
Going by this argument, if the worker did nothing but draw the blue prints, he is not entitled to any of the share, as the present value of a piece of paper with instructions is worthless. It ignores the mechanics of value, and doesn't attribute market factors for the phenomenon of value either, but rather just assumes that prices are governed by the concept of present vs future goods without any evidence and merely an unimaginable example to show the point. Its not a very scientific argument.
(Please excuse the horrible quoting behavior. Getting used to this new editor and stuff.)
Esuric's very comprehensive reply addressed most of the fallacies here, but I want to address this point specifically, because it seems like nobody has yet.
The "present value" of a good isn't its value if it were to be consumed immediately. The present value of a good refers to the sum of all its future value discounted by time (based on the subjective time preference of the individual). A "piece of paper with instructions" is not worthless in the present as long as someone has a desire to, at some point in time, follow the instructions to achieve the end results. A worker drawing blueprints would earn money based on how much those blueprints are valued by others.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
>>No, I think that coercion is tortious persuasion.
so, you don't disagree with the philosophy on Mises.org you just prefer to use different words and phrases.
Sat. 10/04/24 11:34 EDT.post #67 Liberté:Coercion is a species of persuasion. Rudolph Giuliani:Freedom is about authority.Rape is a species of sex.Robbery is a species of business.Murder is a species of medical surgery.Physical force is a species of reason.
Liberté:Coercion is a species of persuasion.
Rudolph Giuliani:Freedom is about authority.
You're just playing Orwellian word games.Persuasion includes the option to reject what is being offered, whereas coercion does not.
Failing to discriminate between fundamentally different things, and intentionally misusing language, is not serious discussion.
excellent post MMMark
Persuasion includes the option to reject what is being offered,
Is this always true? Surely you've heard stories of young kids being persuaded into doing things they otherwise wouldn't.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Sat. 10/04/24 12:37 EDT.post #68 hayekianxyz:Is this always true?Only if it's tautological.
hayekianxyz:Is this always true?
But it still includes the option of rejecting whatever the offer may be.
Rejecting either coercion or persuasion may have negative consequences, it's true - but whereas the negative consequence of resisting coercion is a direct physical attack from the coercer, the negative consequences of rejecting an attempt at persuasion are anything from starving to death to someone changing their opinion of you, none of which are external attacks on your person.
The starving man offered a job at less than a dollar per hour is still very much presented with a voluntary choice. He can work for the employer, eventually earning enough to buy food and improve his lot in life; he can choose to starve to death; or he can work for someone else who offers better conditions, better pay, etc. (or provide value to others in some other way). It's not the fault of capitalism that hunger and poor working conditions exist, but capitalism provides the most effective means for alleviating such circumstances.
Sat. 10/04/24 17:34 EDT.post #73 hayekianxyz:Surely you've heard stories of young kids being persuaded into doing things they otherwise wouldn't.I think you could have found a more interesting challenge. For example, you could have invoked the case of blackmail, then pointed out that, by my criterion, blackmail is "coercive."
hayekianxyz:Surely you've heard stories of young kids being persuaded into doing things they otherwise wouldn't.