/biz/ - Business & Finance

The noes knows.

>>741893
Kek

>>741890
No

What is wrong with the labor theory of value?

>>741890
Sort of. Not really. As a tool using species, our labor only produces by virtue of the capital we use. Owning the capital entitles one to a portion of the spoils of the labor another man uses with that capital. Owning capital, especially enough that you employ multiple people's labor, is the source of constantly generating wealth. Neither capital nor labor produces without the other. The key to wealth is obligating the labor of others in service of yourself by virtue of your ownership of capital. You don't generate wealth without both inputs. Which one is more important is a matter of semantics.

>>742006
Erm, so the owners contribution is essentially that of a feudal baron's?

>>742009
An owner's obligation falls under maintenance of capital and making it available for use.

>>742009

'Owners' (temporarily) forfeit their capital so that it can be used in combination with labour to create wealth.

Meanwhile, non-owners such as yourself use their capital for their own benefit. Buying goods and services with it, reducing wealth through consumption (in return for 'happiness').


This difference is why owners are rewarded for supplying capital. Btw, nothing is stopping you from becoming an owner yourself.

>>742015
But he doesn't actually personally do that either, labor does.

>>742019
But I'm saying, strictly speaking, the owner doesn't *do* anything. His contribution is essentially what a tollman contributes to getting a car across a bridge.

>>742500
IT WOULDN'T BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE WITHOUT THE OWNER, FAGGOT

>>742516
Right, so you're disagreeing with Smith? You think ownership is the source of wealth, yes?

>>742516
Are you saying that if the 5% of people who own 90% of the capital disappeared, their capital would go with them?

>>742516
Yelling at people is only going to make the socialists look good, anon!

>>742565
We're going to look at lot better down the road

>>741890
The machinists do the work, but who owns the machines? The executives.

>>742667
So?

>>742667
She's a Marxist.

>>742667
She's a Marxist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OmXx_PurJs

So is her party, which selected her to run for them. She nearly got into house of representatives before, with 29% of the vote. Now that she has political publicity, she'll probably do that after city council. They also only lost Minneapolis City Council by 229 votes

>>742675
It's obviously an edited video, but she says "capitalism is the problem", without saying why it's the problem. But Seattle is full of faggots anyways so I'm not surprised that they actually think socialism is good.

>>742681
>I'm not surprised that they actually think socialism is good.

But it is. I'm not sure how you can disagree.

>>742536
The capital would remain behind but if they all disappeared, there would be nobody left who actually knows how to use capital properly - less enough of those inheriting that wealth continue to invest it properly in the right places.

Not saying there's anything noble about what the capital owners are doing - just that the fact that they're doing it is what drives commerce.

>>742695

Socialism is only good when everyone in the system contributes

When you fill the country with dindus, then it breaks down instantly

>>742681
She's a Marxist, her party is Marxist. There are countless volumes on why they think capitalism is the problem.

>>742703
I'm guessing by "wealth" and "capital" you mean "money". I'm talking about the actually things for producing and the products, though.

>>742707
Nope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

>>742712
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

Because we're totally going to eliminate the welfare state in the west and tell all the generations of nigs and muds that they don't get shit because they dont' contribute

>>742713
It would be way easier to get a job under socialism, since the workday would be much shorter. Unless you were physically incapable, you could get a job the very day you started looking.

Value is subjective and comes from the price one expects to sell the good for. You can spend all the time you want building something to sell to people buts it's only worth what they're willing to pay.

>>742695

>>742500
>But he doesn't actually personally do that either, labor does.

The owner doesn't have to personally do it, they are responsible for making sure it gets done. If equipment malfunctions or hurts someone, the laborer isn't the one held responsible for the damage (barring negligence or incompetence on their part, although even then their ability to cover damages is far less than an owner).

>>742712
Marx was a genius diagnostician its the solution he proposed that doesnt jive with reality.

He was spot on about what free market capitalism with no regard for society the earth or humanity as a whole would lead to.

>>742536
For the most part, yes, if you consider a world where all the owners of capital magically disappeared. That's why we have inheritance laws, though. That and a system of public held ownership of corporations that ensure a larger entity is generally involved in the managing of capital and labor so that the death of a single person doesn't royally fuck the business over until a replacement is appointed.

>>742936
>the laborer isn't the one held responsible for the damage

Are you shitting me? Workers are most often, far more often than management or owners, held responsible for work place accidents and injuries. A hundred workers, especially low level workers, will get shit-canned before one manager is sacked.

Management and owners have a very strong bias against admitting they hired the wrong supervisor/manager and much prefer to blame workers, especially workers who can be replaced easily and have a difficult time defending themselves.

>they are responsible for making sure it gets done.

Fucking lol. Most managers are organizational place-holders. Ever seen "self-motivated" in a job description? That means "I want you to do your job without me having to make sure it gets done". Managers are very aware of what their job actually entails, and are keen to put as many of their responsibilities onto the workers as they can. They're also keen to take credit for having done so.

>>742962
You left out some but about how the man is keeping you down.

>>742978
>You left out some but about how the man is keeping you down.

Can I have that again in english?

>ITT: people who may or may not have understood freshman economics wax poetic about the virtues of capitalism based on some misunderstood Marx and stuff that they picked up about the "Austrian School" online that they think means anything

>>742662
The road to the gulag, right?

>>742923
We're talking about wealth, not value. They aren't the same thing unless you think growing corn and cornering the corn market are the same.

>>742941
Can you explain why everything I own would disappear if I did?

>>743043
As opposed to the Indonesian killings of 1965–66?

>>742986

>>741890
Basically, yes. The source of value (which I will assume translates to wealth) is the want of the consumer.

Given, say, a baseball, it does not matter if the baseball was made by man or machine, or simply conjured from thin air, or if it was easy or took a year; it has value because people want to use it to play baseball.

Now that we're talking about baseball, think about baseball players signing their balls. People will pay a lot of money for that, right? but signing a ball, while increasing its value by at least a few hundred dollars, is not a several-hundred-dollar act.

As for the socialist angle...The owner is responsible as a residual claimant, organizing the capital/labor together as efficiently as possible. They also aid the business by reducing the number of contracts required for production/sales and putting together the laborers with both the capital and the consumers necessary to make a profit.

In exchange, they take some of the profit of the labor.

>>742695

>>743578
First of all, you're completely misrepresenting what the term "value" means in classical economic, where are the terms Smith spoke in: signing the ball might increase its market price, but it sure as hell doesn't do anything for the value. In neoclassical economics, value and price are identical, but that is not the case in classical economics.

Secondly, you misconstruing it as synonymous with wealth.

>>743578
You're completely misrepresenting what the term "value" means in classical economics, which are the terms Smith spoke in: signing the ball might increase its market price, but it sure as hell doesn't do anything for the value. In neoclassical economics, value and price are identical, but that is not the case in classical economics.

I also notice that you are misconstruing value as synonymous with wealth.

>>742939
Same like Ayn Rand.
She was excellent in deconstructing socialism, but her objectivism isn't quite desirable either.

>>743771
Ayn Rand didn't write any in depth economic theory that I recall.

>>743604
Capitalism was an important improvement over the old system, but holding it up as the final system to end all systems, the Holy Grail of economic systems, rather than as a contextualized development, is ridiculous.

>>742962
>A hundred workers, especially low level workers, will get shit-canned before one manager is sacked.

Shit canning as a low wage level worker is hardly holding someone responsible. Employment is at will. You can't sue your employees for causing accidents.

The business is responsible for the resulting lawsuits and fines. If someone is dumb enough to do-business-as rather than incorporate, they can lose their business and personal assets.

>tfw socialist on /biz/

>>744493
We're pretty common here, actually.

>>744493
>you will never be able to open fire upon a line of shackled bourgeoisie

>>744501
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUMDNDQJ_1k

>>742707
>having this level of understanding of the terminology
>thinking anyone will even consider your opinion
>at all

>>744493
>>744499
Is socialism just the end game result of 100% vertical integration?

>>742925
>>743547

>>742925
>>743604

>>744499
>we come over here from /lit/ to shitpost a lot, actually

>>744544
Yes, and 100% vertical integration is simply the end result of capitalism. Consider the following:

Firms grow because external transaction costs exceed internal transaction costs.

Technology reduces the internal transaction costs relative to external transaction costs.

Firms will continue to grow until planning exceeds the market in efficiency.

It's not a matter of if it's a matter of when. And when it happens, I sure as shit want that planning dictatorship to be democratically controlled. As is, many corporations/firms exceed the size and power of actually existing governments. Most firms are simply polities without any obligations to their citizens.

>>744553
>Most firms are simply polities without any obligations to their citizens.
This is pretty well said, makes me think of the City of London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London

>>744553
>Firms will continue to grow until planning exceeds the market in efficiency.
What keeps the feedback loop functioning in a planned economy? Even for a firm, they rely on market feedback for evaluation.

surely there is a way to maintain market forces in a 100% integrated economy as a means to sustain innovation and demand responsiveness

>>744561
>planned economics can't evaluate feedback and consumption
>planned economies can't incentivize anything

>>744566
Generally speaking, how then?

>>744574
I'm not sure what you mean, how then? In regard to the first, it's simply a matter of conducting surveys to ask for consumer ordering of priority and measuring consumption in general. In regard to the second, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

>>744561
Why? So much is malleable about desire and innovation, the idea that the market is ideal because it helps mankind best achieve his desires is laughable. This is why praxeology is laughable: human desire is not some divine spark, it is a moldable thing, it is subjected to molding at this very moment.

Already marketing is capable of making or breaking a product's success. For this reason, it seems likely that propaganda more than anything will be the tool of future planners. markets are already dictated by these very forces, they are just not yet co-ordinated by a single entity.

This is not a picture that I find particularly appealing. But I simply do not see a bright future for humanity. Technology is slowly eclipsing mankind's effectiveness in every decision-making role he has. That consumption would not also be subjected to this seems a naive position.

>>744580
You're forgetting that economic planning would be democratic. Propaganda would be somewhat of a silly proposition under the circumstances.

>>744578
>conducting surveys
Surveys are unreliable as they don't force the choice. Voting with your dollar isn't just important because it's money, but because you're choosing what NOT to spend it on. In addition to all of the lost nuances involved in the choice dilemma relating to all of the other areas (timing, reserve, quantity,etc.)

It's not so much a matter of "getting feedback" but realizing a true feedback loop, that doesn't need translation and runs embedded within the economy itself.


Even if contribution was measured in an amicable way, how could you distribute the benefit? more survey points?


understand that I'm not trying to bash the structure, but trying to find flaws and remove doubt as to their function. I believe a 100% integrated economy is the future due to the reduction of profit friction. I just haven't seen any reasonable accommodations for incorporating market forces to ensure market stability and responsiveness

>>744591
Surveys do force you to choose what "not to spend it on", because you have to do rankings. Besides that, you can't have whatever you want

>Even if contribution was measured in an amicable way, how could you distribute the benefit? more survey points?
No, you have a limited draw based upon your labor contribution. You can't just have whatever you want in socialism. The idea of everyone having whatever they want is communism, which is post-scarcity socialism and highly hypothetical.

>>743759
Value is entirely subjective, though. It doesn't exist unless somebody wants it. If the market price goes up, the value that the ball has for the buyer and seller goes up significantly.

There's not a 1:1 relation between the two, but I would think that to be wealthy, one would to obtain a lot of things that are value.

>>744590
...it seriously never occurred to you that people might have the motivation and means to influence the consensus on economic planning in their favor?

>>744597
>because you have to do rankings
Sorry, I think I misread that the 1st time. So would these surveys essentially be an ordering form?

>you have a limited draw
a limited draw of what?

>>744604
Or that, even under the current "democratic" countries, propaganda is used as an effective tool. It is a technique too good to remain unused, and barring direct intervention with the workings of the mind, it is the next best thing.

What could be better than making man desire most the circumstances you need of him?

I am not, for the record, claiming capitalism is the best alternative to this. No, it is the ideological threshold to this very society. Already we see the inchoate forms of this brave new world in advertising, mass media, and our gradual abstraction into X-iary economies.

>>744601
You're talking in terms of market value vs. exchange value. Labor value and use value are other forms of value.

Wealth is Smith's terms is of the nation, so it doesn't work that way. As Smith pointed out, when a bunch of merchants through gold back to Britain from the new world, it didn't make Britain significantly wealthier, it just made the price of gold go down.

>>744604
No, not really, since media is also democratically controlled. All the means of public manipulation are democratically controlled. The only option of that sort of persuasion left would be things like public speeches à la Athens. People who worked in media would of course have more influence and control, but it would be nothing like what we have going on today.

>>744607
>Sorry, I think I misread that the 1st time. So would these surveys essentially be an ordering form?
Yes.

>a limited draw of what?
Goods.

>>744617
Propaganda is not publicly and democratically controlled in democratic countries, though. It is almost entirely privately owned, and state propaganda is hardly subject to democrat input.

>>744622
>Goods.
How would the relative availability of particular goods be managed without a market and fiat currency?

I have a limited number of goods to draw on, but how can I decide which goods in particular? is there a calculated % of total for EACH type of product that my relative wealth entitles me to?

>>744632
Of course, goods are valuated relative to each other. It wouldn't work like money, though, because the idea would be to fulfill everyone's demand as much as possible, rather than to simply separate everyone from their money--it's just that the demands of those who put in more would get higher priority. You also couldn't personally save.

>>744644
>because the idea would be to fulfill everyone's demand as much as possible
what kind of timeline are we talking here; survey order to goods delivery? People's preferences oscillate pretty irregularly and drastically.

>the demands of those who put in more would get higher priority
So the reward motive is preference, not quantity. Interesting.

>You also couldn't personally save.
So I wouldn't be allowed to stockpile more of something than the democratically mandated "no saving beyond here" limit?

Am I also not allowed to barter with other people?

>>744651
>what kind of timeline are we talking here; survey order to goods delivery? People's preferences oscillate pretty irregularly and drastically.
Depends on numerous factors, whether it's a local thing, whether it's easily produced, whether it's more difficult to produce, whether we're taking about cars or different kinds of corn chips, etc.

>So the reward motive is preference, not quantity. Interesting.
It could work in any number of ways, this is purely speculative, which is why Marx didn't deal with it. What we're talking about is called "utopian socialism", it's putting the cart before the horse. The system would be worked out democratically and with trial and error by the workers. The idea of planning it before the revolution isn't very practical: you can try an idea, but you only do what works.

>So I wouldn't be allowed to stockpile more of something
No, you could stockpile shit. You'd have to turn it over if there were an emergency, but otherwise you could. What I'm saying is you couldn't stockpile your withdrawal limit.

>>744658
That is, concerning the second bit, we can get a rough approximation based on our understanding of post-capitalists economics. No such thing as the M-C-M and C-M-C modes of accumulation, no such thing as moneylending, no such thing as wage labor, workers control of economy, etc.