The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: BenTucker on February 18, 2006, 11:27:01 PM
-
as a mutualist or individualist anarchist who is a free market, anti-capitalist the difference between the value of labor-power as a commodity and the value of labor's product is a an unnatural outcome caused by state-enforced monopoly returns to land and capital and state-enforced unequal exchange in the labor market whereas for Marx once wage-labor had been instituted it is the natural outcome of the market and the source of the capitalists' exploitation and appropriation.
therefore mutualist believe for labor to receive its full product it did not require a utopian labor-note currency like the collectivist social anarchists called for it or for the collective ownership of the means of production like Marx called for but rather only required that the banking industry be opened up to the laws of market competition via mutualist banks by ending state granted privileges.
-
The problem with all Cost-of-Production theories of value is that they do not ask why man acts to create capital.
Man acts to create capital in order to increase his supply of consumer's goods. Man has no need for capital if it cannot be used to create consumer goods. So, originally the consumer good is valued by supply and demand, and then the factors of production which create that consumer good tend toward equilibrium.
Imagine a book printer (capital) and a book (consumer good). According to Cost-of-Production theories, first the book printer is priced, and then the book's price comes from the cost of the book printer. Clearly this is mistaken: the book is valued originally, and then the price of the book printer is determined by the price of the book.
In other words, the Labor Theory of Value is completely and totally erroneous.
-
Hard to believe people still spew this crap out. Value depends on marginal utility.
-
Do mutualists also believe in not infringing on others' individual common equal access collectivist opportunity rights to the Shift key?
-
Do mutualists also believe in not infringing on others' individual common equal access collectivist opportunity rights to the Shift key?
No, the Shift key is common opportunity access. The CAPS LOCK key is the one for which you will be charged economic rent - provided that mutually anarchist individuals see a value in your labors using said key.
-
Does this theory explain what happenes when nobody wants to buy what you're selling?
-
There's the problem. Value of a product is only what someone else is willing to pay. If the printer's book is so good that someone will pay $100 for it, then it's value is $100. If it sucks, then it has little or no value.
-
I thought Labour Theory of Value was dead about a hundred years ago.
Value is based on utility. I don't care how much effort someone put into making an object. If it has no use to me or anyone else, what value does it have?
Although I think labour theory of value underlies a lot of the Union and governmetn Make Work program doctrines.
-
I thought Labour Theory of Value was dead about a hundred years ago.
Value is based on utility. I don't care how much effort someone put into making an object. If it has no use to me or anyone else, what value does it have?
Although I think labour theory of value underlies a lot of the Union and governmetn Make Work program doctrines.
Right. Menger and von Bohn-Bawerk killed it.
-
I thought Labour Theory of Value was dead about a hundred years ago.
Value is based on utility. I don't care how much effort someone put into making an object. If it has no use to me or anyone else, what value does it have?
Although I think labour theory of value underlies a lot of the Union and governmetn Make Work program doctrines.
with perfect competition without state privilege there would be no profits and thus wages would dictate product costs...
-
According to Cost-of-Production theories, first the book printer is priced, and then the book's price comes from the cost of the book printer. Clearly this is mistaken: the book is valued originally, and then the price of the book printer is determined by the price of the book.
In other words, the Labor Theory of Value is completely and totally erroneous.
hence the title of the thread is modified...
removing all state privileges means competition via market forces will drive the price down to the labor required to create it
-
According to Cost-of-Production theories, first the book printer is priced, and then the book's price comes from the cost of the book printer. Clearly this is mistaken: the book is valued originally, and then the price of the book printer is determined by the price of the book.
In other words, the Labor Theory of Value is completely and totally erroneous.
hence the title of the thread is modified...
removing all state privileges means competition via market forces will drive the price down to the labor required to create it
What about the profit motive to motivate people to produce and compete?
-
According to Cost-of-Production theories, first the book printer is priced, and then the book's price comes from the cost of the book printer. Clearly this is mistaken: the book is valued originally, and then the price of the book printer is determined by the price of the book.
In other words, the Labor Theory of Value is completely and totally erroneous.
hence the title of the thread is modified...
removing all state privileges means competition via market forces will drive the price down to the labor required to create it
What about the profit motive to motivate people to produce and compete?
what about it?
wishing for it won't make it happen...the higglin' of the market will squeeze out profits and force people to cooperative for mutual benefit (reciprocity).
people will still have to produce to sustain themselves...
-
And slaves still produce for the master out of fear of the whip.
-
And slaves still produce for the master out of fear of the whip.
the master is the market the whip is competition...
the slaves will be liberated!
-
But Labour has no effect on value. Labor is one of the factors that determines costs, not value. You can make a table by hand or with a table saw. All things being equal is the table worth more simply because you made it by hand instead of using a table saw? No. All things being equal the only difference is the costs of producing something, not its actual value.
The logical extention of the Labour theory of value holds that anything that increases the labor used to produce an item increases, so does its value. You can make more valuable holes if you dig it with a shovel instead of a back hoe and you can make a more valuable hole if you make it with a spoon instead of a shovel and more value yet if you use only your bare hands.
Labor has absolutely NO impact on the value of an object. Value is entirely subjective. Why is gold valuable? because people want it. It isn't determined by how much effort went into producing it, that is COST. It is how much people desire something along with how available it is. Basically it is supply and demand and value is measured by something called price.
-
but competition drives value to cost if supply is unconstrained and quality is similar...
thus the overwhelming desire to control supply via monoploy privilege...
-
but competition drives value to cost if supply is unconstrained and quality is similar...
thus the overwhelming desire to control supply via monoploy privilege...
No. Competition drives the supplier to find a faster, cheaper easier way to produce the highest quality product at the price demanded.
Any monopolies that occur (without government involvement) are the result of Company B's inability to figure out how to do the same thing as Company A. Once Company A has that monopoly, they better keep on their toes, or Companies C & D are going to figure out the next big thing, and lure away A's customers. Competition is self correcting.
-
The logical extention of the Labour theory of value holds that anything that increases the labor used to produce an item increases, so does its value. You can make more valuable holes if you dig it with a shovel instead of a back hoe and you can make a more valuable hole if you make it with a spoon instead of a shovel and more value yet if you use only your bare hands.
Labor has absolutely NO impact on the value of an object. Value is entirely subjective. Why is gold valuable? because people want it. It isn't determined by how much effort went into producing it, that is COST. It is how much people desire something along with how available it is. Basically it is supply and demand and value is measured by something called price.
I'll be doing some landscaping before I put my house on the market. If I dig the holes with my hands instead of using my tiller & shovel, to get the labor added value, will I lose $$ if I wear gloves? If so, can I offset that by planting marigolds?
-
What if I don't like marigolds? Do I have to pay for the labor, anyways? :(
-
What if I don't like marigolds? Do I have to pay for the labor, anyways? :(
According the the Labor Theory of Value, yes. But, just to be super cooperative, I'll gladly dig up and replant. It will take a long time, since I'll be doing the work by hand. I also plan to walk to and from the garden center. Should only take about 5 trips, uphill, both ways, through snow. That should add LOT$ of labor value.
-
You can add even more value if you carry one flower at a time. Next thing you know, your house will be worth MILLION$!!
-
you're missing the point...
value and costs will become the same under perfect competition.
only government granted privilege keeps the notion of profits (a form of economic rent) viable...
-
you're missing the point...
value and costs will become the same under perfect competition.
only government granted privilege keeps the notion of profits (a form of economic rent) viable...
You're missing the point. Value and costs can never become the same, because we live in a world of uncertainty.
-
you're missing the point...
value and costs will become the same under perfect competition.
only government granted privilege keeps the notion of profits (a form of economic rent) viable...
You're missing the point. Value and costs can never become the same, because we live in a world of uncertainty.
notice I said "perfect" competition?
and like anarchy which can never be fully attained - neither can perfect competition...
but we should do everything in our power to allow them to move towards becoming the same by withdrawing all governmemt granted privileges which shift costs and let some accrue benefits at the expense of those being excluded...
because during that process of moving towards perfect competition people will eventually come to the realization - voluntarily - that it is better to cooperatively share in mutual benefit (reciprocity) than to attempt to continue to compete at the expense of others w/o coercion masked as privilege.
-
I am curious to know where you learned the Economic idea of perfect competition. I hope you are not confused by the term perfect as if that model were something that society would like to attain. Perfect competition is simply a model by which Economists may draw conclusions based on a set of assumptions assumptions. It's a thought experiment where there are an unlimited number of suppliers and an unlimited number of buyers. The closest thing that resembles that kind of market might be wheat or corn. It certainly would not be a goal for the energy market or the market for automobiles. Due to economies of scale and private knowledge, perfect competition is neither attainable nor desireable in the real world.
I admire your ability to think abstractly and come up with such an interesting idea, but think about it for a few days and read up a little more on the idea of perfect competition before you try to resurrect the labor theory again.
-
Due to economies of scale and private knowledge, perfect competition is neither attainable nor desireable in the real world
so-called benefits due to economies of scale and private knowledge are typically enforced via goverment granted privilege...
before you try to resurrect the labor theory again
it is a "modified version" of the labor theory not "the" labor theory...
-
You need to define your terms. What is "perfect competition?" What is "imperfect competition?" Is there a "neutral competition?" What is "competition?" What is "perfect?"
Dictionary.com is a good start, so here we go:
COMPETITION
1. The act of competing, as for profit or a prize; rivalry.
2. A test of skill or ability; a contest: a skating competition.
3. Rivalry between two or more businesses striving for the same customer or market.
4. A competitor: The competition has cornered the market.
5. Ecology. The simultaneous demand by two or more organisms for limited environmental resources, such as nutrients, living space, or light.
PERFECT
1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
3. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.
4. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.
5.
a. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
b. Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting.
6. Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool.
7. Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red.
8. Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day.
9. Botany. Having both stamens and pistils in the same flower; monoclinous.
10. Grammar. Of, relating to, or constituting a verb form expressing action completed prior to a fixed point of reference in time.
11. Music. Designating the three basic intervals of the octave, fourth, and fifth.
How are these two words compatible? One is an act of testing skill, an act of improvement; the other is indifference and irrelevence.
Perfect competition? An unmixed rivalry? An excellent contest? Perfectly suited for competing?
-
Perfect competition is when it doesn't rain during a marathon.
-
What is "perfect competition?"
an infinite high quality supply of goods to choose from inwhich all the information about the good is known for an infinite number of buyers...
-
What is "perfect competition?"
an infinite high quality supply of goods to choose from inwhich all the information about the good is known for an infinite number of buyers...
Good luck with that. I'll stick with reality.
-
What is "perfect competition?"
an infinite high quality supply of goods to choose from inwhich all the information about the good is known for an infinite number of buyers...
In that scenario government would work too because an infinite number of people could monitor the infinite number of actions made by officials and politicians and make sure nobody does anything bad.
-
What is "perfect competition?"
an infinite high quality supply of goods to choose from inwhich all the information about the good is known for an infinite number of buyers...
Good luck with that. I'll stick with reality.
theoretically the costs would equal the value...
-
What is "perfect competition?"
an infinite high quality supply of goods to choose from inwhich all the information about the good is known for an infinite number of buyers...
Good luck with that. I'll stick with reality.
theoretically the costs would equal the value...
Theoretically, my foot can fit up your ass if I shove it hard enough.
-
What is "perfect competition?"
an infinite high quality supply of goods to choose from inwhich all the information about the good is known for an infinite number of buyers...
Good luck with that. I'll stick with reality.
theoretically the costs would equal the value...
Quality of the good and the information about the good are not the only factors that influence the price.
-
Quality of the good and the information about the good are not the only factors that influence the price.
you mean like the economic rent that attaches when a media/sport star "endorses" the product?
-
theoretically the costs would equal the value...
I think what you are saying is that when the desirability is high enough to cover the marginal costs (labor included) then the value (ie. price should really be the word used here instead of value) will equal the costs.
If price is what you have in mind, then it could be theoritically true to some extent, in a perfect competition setting.
Perfect competition is a flawed concept because it assumes that there is both an almost "unlimited" amount of buyers (high demand) and an almost "unlimited" amount of suppliers (high offer). It assumes that there always is a high demand regardless of the actual desirability and usefulness of different goods to different people at different times and also assumes that there always is a high offer regardless of the costs, required knowledge, environmental factors etc..
Its logical application leads to every man being capable of self sufficiance (which is what man evolved from) and therefore not needing to trade with one another. Perfect competition is a practical impossibility and its approximation is certainly not desirable anyway as evidenced by the division of labor and economies of scale.
And costs do not set the value of a given object (as was demonstrated several times in this thread)... they will influence its price to some extent. And if you still do not agree, then consider the following:
-What is the value of jewelry to someone who picked some on the ground but can't have access to food? It is immensely less than that of food.
-What is the value of food to someone who owns the last cow on earth and loves jewelry? It is somewhat less than that of jewelry.
Labor is out of the equation here.
If you were to factor the costs (including labor) into the equation, you would come to the conclusion that they would influence the price and not the desirability (ie. value) that the buyer places on the goods.
The price is influenced, among other things, by the value of the object for the buyer, and the costs associated with producing this object for the seller.
(btw, In a perfect competition perspective, both must be able to produce and buy jewels and food. How else would you have a high demand and a high supply?)
I am pleased, however, that whatever our respective theories are, no one is calling for legislation yet.
-
If price is what you have in mind, then it could be theoritically true to some extent, in a perfect competition setting.
thank you for agreeing...
no one is calling for legislation yet.
I am simply trying to make the point that it is legislation (government granted privilege) that is enacted for the benefit of business (cartelization) to move away from perfect competition inorder to protect profits (price minus costs)...
what would be the effect on economies of scale to remove the government granted privilege of limited liability protection which was enacted inorder to encourage the pooling of capital to scale operations?
what if all privileges were removed that are subtly built into our property laws posing as a nuetral legal framework?
I am going to posit just as Ralph Borsodi did that actually the family homestead is the most efficient goods producing system...
and once profits and capital formation are squeezed out via revoking government granted privilege & the resulting intense competitive pressures that the logical system that people would gravitate towards is mutualism - voluntary cooperative trade based on mutual benefit (reciprocity).
-
Quality of the good and the information about the good are not the only factors that influence the price.
you mean like the economic rent that attaches when a media/sport star "endorses" the product?
- distance to the store where the product is sold, shipping cost
- condition of the product (new/used, bad condition/good condition)
- method of manufacture of the product (organic/non-organic, custom made/mass produced)
- presentation of the product (packaging, how it is displayed at the store, your ability to test the product at the store or see the product in action)
- warranty you get with the product
- reputation of the store
- coupons, sale events, liquidation sale
- auction (depends on who is present at the auction on the day you are bidding on the product)
- need for the product
- scarcity of the product (gold is finite and that affects its price)
- buying items individually vs. buying them in bulk
- etc.
I can go on and on.
-
I am simply trying to make the point that it is legislation (government granted privilege) that is enacted for the benefit of business (cartelization) to move away from perfect competition inorder to protect profits (price minus costs)...
Your point is mostly valid indeed. I would only argue that perfect competition is both unattainable and undesirable anyway. Legislation restricting business is not passed to protect profits but to protect well established corporations (and thus their profits). It is not passed to move away from perfect competition but to further restrict natural competition (which is very different from one place/time/sector to another and could/should never be perfect).
Take my profits away and you take my incentive away...
what would be the effect on economies of scale to remove the government granted privilege of limited liability protection which was enacted inorder to encourage the pooling of capital to scale operations?
Remove the LLC status and free market alternatives might very well emulate it. In fact, I would argue this is mostly the case already. Most contracts do have limitations of liability clauses.
The major difference would be that individuals would not be shielded from responsibility unless by contact (this does not, obviously, include third parties, as with today's LLCs).
But then again, you are free to only deal with mom 'n pop shops and buy a home made car to anyone not requiring you to sign such a contract.
what if all privileges were removed that are subtly built into our property laws posing as a nuetral legal framework?
Not sure what you are referring to...
I am going to posit just as Ralph Borsodi did that actually the family homestead is the most efficient goods producing system...
I would argue that it is not. But we don't need to convince each other on that one either...
and once profits and capital formation are squeezed out via revoking government granted privilege & the resulting intense competitive pressures that the logical system that people would gravitate towards is mutualism - voluntary cooperative trade based on mutual benefit (reciprocity).
Although I do not expect the same results, I would help you remove all government granted privileges and regulations because it is the only moral thing to do. I do not care about utilitarian arguments, so I wouldn't want to go back even if profits and capital formation went away as a result (but it will not).
Trade is voluntary (at least it is in free societies) and necessarily based on mutual benefit, actual or perceived.
Cooperative is a word you might want to explain in your definition. If what you mean is common ownership or redistribution... then you can have your little cooperative business but I want no part in it.
I can go on and on.
Have you ever noticed how it is always those who know least about running one particular business that always seem to know best how to run it? (I'm not targeting anyone btw)
In a free society, this is either amusing or annoying... in today's society, this is very dangerous because these people often have the biggest political clout.
In the end, what's important is that I think we would all go in the same direction.. we would all abolish government interference in the operation of the free market. Some would do this on practical grounds, others on philosophical grounds and others on both. Some would like to see unbridled capital flourish and expand.. other would like to see profits totally go away.
But none of us are violent individuals and we all understand that legislation is violence enacted by cowards using their pens to control the guns of mindless automatons.
-
I'll be doing some landscaping before I put my house on the market. If I dig the holes with my hands instead of using my tiller & shovel, to get the labor added value, will I lose $$ if I wear gloves? If so, can I offset that by planting marigolds?
Ceteras Parabus. All things being equal. That is a hole which is completely identical to another hole in every regard except for the manner in which it was produced.
A huge difference between using tools and not using tools to dig a hole. You can dig a hell of a lot of with tools. Thus production increases and the overall amount of wealth produced greatly increased.