Jon Irenicus:Which is to say, undervalued factors will tend to earn their DMVP as the market approaches equilibrium. Yes.
Jon, why are you and I always arguing without disagreeing? I never denied that short-term profits were possible. Yes, perhaps the better way of saying it is that the EQUILIBRIUM state of the market is one without profits from capital investment alone. While the market is still new, before the workers realize just how much value they've added to the product, you will make more money than they demand in pay.
JCFolsom:This isn't about an "aversion to capitalists". It isn't about the immorality of profits in and of themelves. It is about the immorality of profits because they are only possible, in the long term, through interventions in the market.
If I hear you correctly, does that mean that if I am an entreprenuer that has forcasted future demand and profited, my profits will be nonexistant eventually? Or, will the free market come to a point where profits are impossible, aka ERE?
Schools are labour camps.
eliotn:If I hear you correctly, does that mean that if I am an entreprenuer that has forcasted future demand and profited, my profits will be nonexistant eventually? Or, will the free market come to a point where profits are impossible, aka ERE?
Well, I've been reading up a little bit on these acronyms y'all've been throwing out there, ERE and DMRP, because I'm not that familiar with the jargon. As it turns out, while Jon's question led me to believe we agreed, we still actually don't. My understanding is that the concept of ERE still allows for rents to accrue to the capital owner for their machinery, and my position is that long-term, they will not, because their clients will outcompeted by owner-operators who have lower overhead.
Profits would basically be the result of repeated gambling. To take advantage, you'd have to hire people at a certain rate, and hope that you will be able to make more money in your initial sales than your costs including labor. It is very easy to lose in this fashion. Particularly if Union consciousness is very prevalent, too, people will figure out that instead of a set amount, they can take a certain percentage of the revenue after material expenses, eventually, as a group, all of the remaining revenue.
As I've said, in a true free market, the only way to make money will be to personally add value to something you sell for more than you buy. Not one penny will accrue by virtue of ownership alone, in the long term.
JCFolsom: As I've said, in a true free market, the only way to make money will be to personally add value to something you sell for more than you buy. Not one penny will accrue by virtue of ownership alone, in the long term.
Don't mom & pop alternatives already sort of do this? I do know that many find mom & pop alternatives (as well as buying local for various other things, such as local foods etc.) for similar reasons of added value, versus buying them elsewhere. I would say this is a prime reason I go to used book stores & specialty vinyl records stores, as they have much more added value to me (atmosphere, conversation, special deals, certain rare stock etc. not found online).
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
My point is that there are ways of making profit (and not just short-term - the market always is faced with uncertainty) without being either a laborer or a capital-owner (or maybe one of the two) that do involve a contribution to the production process. Keep in mind equilibrium is never reached, it's a tendency of the market to move toward it though. What I do see disappearing on the market are the useless amongst CEOs and managers who arise due to the state's bureaucratization of the firm. Unless they can pull their weight I do not see a part for them in the market.
Of course, interest will continue accruing to owners of capital, whoever that may be. I do not see why you think this will disappear. At best, these will be competed down to the level that is prevalent across the market.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
eliotn: I don't get it. Why do people thing that capitalism is somehow equivelent to slavery/satism?
I don't get it. Why do people thing that capitalism is somehow equivelent to slavery/satism?
I think it has something do with the theory of accumulation of capital. Supposedly unless capitalism is regulated then this "turbo-capitalism" is going to lead all the wealth to becoming more and more concentrated until one man owns all the wealth in the world and everybody else is forced to work for him for 12 cents an hour and be his wage slaves or else they must die of hunger and you can not be free if you are dead from hunger.