Obvious but interesting, is that marxist labor theory of value, and even their supposed social value of ‘labor’ are both in fact valueless and non-logical. But the presence of a ‘consumer’ is not. It’s not that business value labor. It’s that business and capitalists need CUSTOMERS in order to organize production. The challenge in expanding any economy, and in the satisfaction of consumer wants, is not production – it is voluntarily organization production for the satisfaction of demonstrated consumer wants. Money supplies us with information that represents the accumulated savings of time, created by the division of knowledge and labor. I know this is pretty obvious (and incomplete as an argument) but I still am amazed at how the marxist zombie simply continues to walk the face of the earth.
Theme: Productivity
-
Labor Is Meaningless – Consumers Are Not
Obvious but interesting, is that marxist labor theory of value, and even their supposed social value of ‘labor’ are both in fact valueless and non-logical. But the presence of a ‘consumer’ is not. It’s not that business value labor. It’s that business and capitalists need CUSTOMERS in order to organize production. The challenge in expanding any economy, and in the satisfaction of consumer wants, is not production – it is voluntarily organization production for the satisfaction of demonstrated consumer wants. Money supplies us with information that represents the accumulated savings of time, created by the division of knowledge and labor. I know this is pretty obvious (and incomplete as an argument) but I still am amazed at how the marxist zombie simply continues to walk the face of the earth.
-
WELL MR FULLER. YOU’RE WRONG. ITS THAT WE DONT NEED A JOB IN PRODUCTION- BUT WE
WELL MR FULLER. YOU’RE WRONG. ITS THAT WE DONT NEED A JOB IN PRODUCTION- BUT WE DO NEED A JOB. EVERYONE DOES.
Everyone has to earn a living. Everyone has to have a job. But the compensation for that job, and the job itself may not require that we engage in PRODUCTION in the marketplace. But instead, that we police all society against free riding, we care for and maintain the commons, and provide emergency care and support for one another.
If one performs these duties then of course, one is due compensation for them.If one does not perform these duties, or worse, violates them, then one does not earn compensation on the backs of those who do police, care for, support and provide production. Production is not the only valuable activity in society. In fact, it appears, that labor and clerical work are of near zero productive value. As such, we are all of us due compensation for our policing and maintenance of the commons, including the criminal, moral, ethical and material commons.
There are ‘negative jobs’. The negative job is to actively police yourself and others against free riding on the backs of others. This is a full time occupation without vacation, days off, or commissions. It does not require that you learn a skill other than moral behavior, and it does not require that you engage in production. It does require that you deny others the ability to engage in criminal, unethical, immoral behavior, or lax or destructive treatment of the commons.
Fuller is wrong. We all must have a job. We must be paid for our jobs. But the job of production is increasingly limited to minority of highly productive people. While the job of preventing criminal, unethical, immoral, and destructive behavior is increasingly abandoned by those who suggest that they are due compensation for merely existing. Which simply means that the most degenerate among us have the greatest claim to the productive efforts of others. That cannot be, in an rational or scientific world, considered moral by any stretch of the imagination.
Labor has no value in production. But labor has enormous value in the defense of life, liberty and property via the suppression of all criminal, ethical, immoral, conspiratorial, corrupt behavior.
Profit from production is a luxury good earned by those with greater talents and ambitions. But that luxury good requires the active suppression of free riding in all its multitude of forms in every part of society: criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial, and corrupt behavior.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-11 07:24:00 UTC
-
IF LABOR IS NO LONGER VALUABLE THEN WHAT DO THE LOWER CLASSES HAVE TO TRADE? SUP
IF LABOR IS NO LONGER VALUABLE THEN WHAT DO THE LOWER CLASSES HAVE TO TRADE? SUPPRESSION OF FREE RIDING: PROPERTY RIGHTS.
(a couple of profound ideas here)
If labor is no longer valuable – at all, then what do the underclasses have to trade?
Nothing? Well, that’s making a lot of assumptions about the structure of society as if it’s governed by some equivalent of the law of gravity. 😉 So, rather than
They have suppression of all free riding to trade: obedience to norms; manners, ethics, morals and laws: respect for property rights, and voting to reduce the state, and their utility as consumers to trade.
But how do we capture those things into something tangible?
With tokens, so that they exchange their consumption for the production of others. We dont need to distribute money through the financial system any longer. There isnt any need for it. We can directly distribute liquidity to consumers, and bypass the financial system. We can give consumers fiat money or digital currency, and pretty much keep them out of the credit system. This number would need to be a percentage of some revenues such that the citizens possess equal interest in the efficiency of the government, and the need to expand productivity in the economy. Otherwise we create malincentive. But at this point, minimum wage labor is preference not a necessity, and we need not interfere with prices for labor.
The distribution to citizens is their payment for suppressing free riding in all its forms. If they agree to suppress free riding in all its forms, then they have earned that distribution. If they fail to suppress free riding in all its forms, then they do not earn that payment. This is sufficient incentive both positive and negative to prevent crimes not of passion. And as an incentive, the threat of losing one’s means of sustenance is pretty hard to improve upon. It is better than physical punishment.
The accumulation of profits is payment for contributing to productivity – for organizing production – now that we know labor is of no value in production, even if problem solving is of value.
This system of compensating people for their actions is simply transforming the moral code for non-anonymous members engaged in equal production and consumption, into a calculable system for anonymous members engaged in equal suppression of free riding, but unequal organization of production.
And to do otherwise is to attempt to obtain property rights for free.
You can’t every achieve equality by any means, but you can certainly pay people from what they earn without cheating them of payment for it. If all of us are producers then we have our production to exchange and equal interest in respect for the necessary properties of production. But if only a few of us are productive (and that is the current state of affairs) why should those people respect the rules of production if they aren’t compensated for it? That’s purely irrational.
THE OPEN PROBLEM
Now, the only problem we face is bearing a child that you cannot support is free riding on the backs of others. Immigration is free riding unless you bring your skills with you. The problem of the female obsession with free riding must be solved. And we must have the moral courage to solve it through aggressive punishment of women who bear children that they cannot support, to the same degree we punish males who resort to violence for the purpose of obtaining what they want. A woman who bears a child that she cannot support is, under all conditions, without exception, is blackmail: the choice between an paying a woman for her immoral action, or the harm that will come to an innocent child.
If we can agree that bearing a child you cannot support is blackmail, or at least a new crime of the same sort. Then it is possible to unite all people in a country with the same interests. Because large scale democratic government simply creates a vehicle for systematic generation of internal conflict given the dissimilarity of ability and interest.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-04 03:13:00 UTC
-
you give things away free, people able to work, will stop working….[but], Here
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/01/schiff-vs-ritholtz-political.html#SiFXioyDzMTQS8k6.99″…if you give things away free, people able to work, will stop working….[but], Here’s an important corollary: If you make people work, you end up with work that has no economic justification.”
I think we can solve this problem finally. Its not so much a conflict as it is an opportunity for the application of technology.
And ill add a third corollary, that is, that respecting property rights and policing against free riding is in fact Work.
And while AnCaps argue that access to society and the market is sufficient compensation, clearly the market for political rents demonstrates that it is not.
There is value in compensating people for respecting property, commons, manners, ethics and morals, law and the rule of law.
Not the least of which is that their incentives then will match those in the productive sector rather than those of the predators un the public sector.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-01 09:18:00 UTC
-
“Anyone who does not practice a trade must eventually become a scoundrel” — Spi
“Anyone who does not practice a trade must eventually become a scoundrel” — Spinoza
I don’t really understand why intellectuals feel that their work products should provide them with a means of support. In fact, the older I get the more convinced I am that you cannot produce honest work if you are paid for it. Science and Truth are not profitable endeavors but luxuries and labors of love.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-01 05:45:00 UTC
-
Seriously. I’m just running around trying to make jobs and wealth and I feel lik
Seriously. I’m just running around trying to make jobs and wealth and I feel like most of my energy goes to avoiding state sponsored vampires.
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-28 06:50:00 UTC
-
“ALL INVOLUNTARY TRANSFERS ARE A LOST OPPORTUNITY FOR PRODUCTIVE EXCHANGE”
“ALL INVOLUNTARY TRANSFERS ARE A LOST OPPORTUNITY FOR PRODUCTIVE EXCHANGE”
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 16:19:00 UTC
-
CAPITALISM: WHAT YOU CAN DO AND PEOPLE NEED YOU TO DO. Capitalism (via the prici
CAPITALISM: WHAT YOU CAN DO AND PEOPLE NEED YOU TO DO.
Capitalism (via the pricing system) merely informs us of what we CAN do to serve the needs of others. It says nothing about the needs of others, or whether one likes to perform those duties.
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-20 13:11:00 UTC
-
CHOICE WORDS AGAINST SOCIALISM (expanded) In the context of intellectual history
CHOICE WORDS AGAINST SOCIALISM
(expanded)
In the context of intellectual history, the argument against socialism was framed as the viability of the “socialist mode of production”.
The central argument against socialism is the impossibility of that mode of production on two points: calculation and incentives – with the debate only over the relative importance of each.
Second, it is non-logical to disconnect the notion of production from economy. Because that is the function of an economy: production, distribution and exchange, in patterns of sustainable specialization and trade. An economy is a means of production. Otherwise the term has no rational meaning.
Third -and this is important – socialist, postmodern and totalitarian humanist dogma is constructed in obscurant language by intent for the purpose of deception.
So by stating economic concepts in operational language, as is required by the canons of science, we illustrate the difference between belief and action, and between the irrational and the rational, and between the impossible and the possible.
The socialist method or mode of production is impossible both logically and demonstrably.
The vague term ‘economic system’ is a form of deception.
The capitalist means of production is possible because both the incentives to do what we do not wish to do, and the means of calculating how to do so, are available to us; such that by doing what we may not wish to do, we do what we are capable of doing, and by doing so satisfy the wants of others, such that we may finally satisfy our own wants.
The socialist means of production is not possible. It is impossible because neither the means of calculation, nor the incentive to do what we do not desire to, exists in that method of production.
Marxism is the biggest organized systemic set of lies since the invention of scriptural monotheism. It is the most murderous religion ever created by man – by replacing mystical allegory with verbal obscurantism and pseudoscience.
If you cannot explain an economic argument in operational language you are either engaged in ignorance or deception or perpetuating deception out of ignorance.
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-20 07:50:00 UTC