CustosliberaIf you're feeling left out it's probably because you defend billionaires who would mince you into fertilizer
I mean… I’m a capitalist who doesn’t defend billionaires and also doesn’t feel left out… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you support capitalism, then yes, you defend billionaires.
Counterpoint: Nope.
So, you support a system that inherently creates an upper class of obscenely rich people, yet are opposed to those people?
Make it make sense.
Markets are nothing more than voluntary association. Most, if not every “obscenely rich” person got this rich because of govt interference (lobbying, govt sanctioned monopoly, corporate welfare, subsidies, etc.)
“Organic” market economy would be beneficial to everyone
Sorry, but a market requires a state to protect it. How else are we gonna make sure no one steals our shit?
… by protecting your own shit.
But I ain’t got no shit cos a bigger guy took it all.
That is less efficient and you’ll eventually just end up with a state that way.
That’s nice, but the claim was that a market cannot exist without a state. It clearly can. Nobody needs to outsource their security. I’m not sure what efficiency has to do with this.
Can you show an example?
An example of someone taking ownership of their own security? If so, the most basic form would be carrying a firearm for defense instead of relying on police. If you want an example with more of a link to the market, how about a illicit drug dealer who protects their person and property?
If you think the black market doesn’t have a central authority, you’re looking through rose tinted glasses. Whoever has the most money and the most guns at their disposal is the authority.
Hold up, I thought we were talking about the state running things? Of course everything has a central authority; this includes unions, churches, and corporations. Though, we certainly don’t need the state for a black market to run its business. However, I guess it wouldn’t really be a black market if there wasn’t a state to declare things illegal 🤔.
I absolutely agree with your second half though. The black market is a perfect capitalist example, and I believe it is an inevitable response to state authoritarianism.
Hold up, I thought we were talking about the state running things?
Why?
Of course everything has a central authority; this includes unions, churches, and corporations.
What do you mean, “of course”?
Though, we certainly don’t need the state for a black market to run its business.
If there weren’t a state, it would just be a “market”, not a black market. And as I said, black markets are controlled by the most wealthy and powerful in that market. They are the de facto state of the black market.
However, I guess it wouldn’t really be a black market if there wasn’t a state to declare things illegal 🤔.
Exactly, yes.
I absolutely agree with your second half though. The black market is a perfect capitalist example, and I believe it is an inevitable response to state authoritarianism
If you consider regulation authoritarian, sure. Or if you’re referring to the outlawing of drugs, I somewhat agree. Weapons trading is grey at best, though.
Why are we talking about the state running things? Because your comment I originally responded to was “sorry, but the market requires a state to protect it. How else are we gonna make sure no one steals our shit?” I believe my responses have been very much on this topic.
I disagree that every market requires a state to function. Humans are social beings and will always continue to trade and barter regardless of the form of government, or lack of government. I absolutely disagree that any third -party is needed for protection of property. Now, if we consider all forms of centralized authority as defacto states, sure, I guess I can’t compete with those semantics and will have to concede that you are right. In that case, I believe any group of people can be a “state”.
Now, I’ve been conversing in good faith, stating my point of view, and even answering one-liner questions. You are clearly against capitalism, and you seem to believe that state protection is necessary for a market to function (please correct me if I’m wrong; I don’t want to put words in someone else’s mouth). Are you against the idea of markets in general? If so, what replaces the market and how would its authority be any better?
Requuring a state to protect private property isn’t “the state running things”. Even right-libertarians concede the necessity of state for this purpose.
Don’t equivocate the two, yeah?
Look friend, it should be clear that “things”, in the context of this conversation so far, is the market. Once again, just like expanding the use of “state” to include anything resembling central authority, you try twisting my words as some sort of gotcha. I’ve been clear and consistent in my beliefs regarding the market and I’m open to hearing alternative views.
It’s fucking bonkers that you think the definition of “things” is what’s at issue here.
What’s bonkers is that you still haven’t offered up your position so it’s difficult to deduce where you are going with this. The original claim was that personal property cannot exist without state protection. I disagree with this and think the black market is a perfect example of a capitalist market that exists outside the protection of the state (and in defiance of it). However, for the sake of constructive dialoge, I conceded that the power structure at the top of the black market could possibly be considered a quasi-state that protects their interests. Now what is your point? Wouldn’t a communist economy still have a central authority to protect the property of the people? Are you against the idea of personal property in general? Personally, I support the concepts of personal property, free markets, and increasing taxes on billionaires.
I never mentioned personal property. I’m talking about private property.
An example of someone taking ownership of their own security? If so, the most basic form would be carrying a firearm for defense instead of relying on police. If you want an example with more of a link to the market, how about a illicit drug dealer who protects their person and property?
No, I’m not opposed to them… I just don’t support them. They can support themselves, and I can support myself just fine. I make more money from them than I would without them, and they make money from me they wouldn’t have otherwise had my skillset to access easily.
I’ve never been forced to take any job… I just manage my skillset in such a way that makes it both rare and valuable. I’ve worn many hats over the years, and I just play the game instead of bitching about the rules Worked out great for me and my family so far. I’ll even have some to leave my kids so they don’t have as hard of a time reaching even higher than I have. That’s the whole point, for me: make my kids’ life better than mine, and I’ve done that so far.
No, I’m not opposed to them… I just don’t support them.
It doesn’t work like that. They are in power, and by not opposing them, you consent to their continued power.
I make more money from them than I would without them,
That isn’t even close to true. Capitalist extraction of surplus value is exactly how they make their profits. If they paid you the value you made them, they wouldn’t have a profit. If they weren’t there to extract that value, you and your fellow workers would make more - it’s basic mathematics.
and they make money from me they wouldn’t have otherwise had my skillset to access easily.
This part is true, yes.
I’ve never been forced to take any job…
So, you’re saying you’re able to retire right now and never work again?
I just play the game instead of bitching about the rules
That’s a slave mindset.
That’s the whole point, for me: make my kids’ life better than mine, and I’ve done that so far.
That’s cool you can think that small. Others, however, realise you could be living even better, and everyone else, including those with nothing, could have that standard of living, too, if we stop being complacent with mere crumbs.
That’s what you have. Mere crumbs of luxury. It’s great that you’re not on the street, but that is an incredibly low standard to have.
Surplus value is not even close to being an accepted economic theory.
Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make it any less true. How do you refute it?
It’s not that i don’t agree ona subjective level, it’s that surplus value’s axioms don’t hold true, which makes it bad at explaining economic phenomenon and even worse at making predictions. If a commodity’s value was derived from how much labour went into it, then commodities that had more imbued labour would be inherently more expensive, but this is not the case in reality. Commodities that are easily produced with very little labour per unit (for example a hand-woven basket) can sell for a very low price, whereas a commodity that doesn’t have much labour per unit at all (for example an app downloaded from an online store) can have a high price.
Similarly surplus value assumes that the difference in price between the exchange value of a commodity and the labour value of its inputs are due to exploitation, but this ignores other factors of production such as land and capital. Surplus value fails to account for the very common phenomenon of capitalists starting some venture, paying employees a salary but running into some issue or another, watching the value of their stock fall to zero and declaring bankruptcy. In such cases how could you claim there was any surplus value at all?
So, surplus value doesn’t exist, simply because some capitalists can… fail to extract it?
Listen buddy, a few people being bad at their job doesn’t mean the job doesn’t exist.
I don’t think you know what surplus value is. It’s the portion of the value that you make for the business that doesn’t go to you, but to the owner.
Right, but the owner brings something to the table: capital. That capital is then risked. Don’t you think that capital owners should be compensated for providing the resources that is used in the production of commodities?
It’s risky to capture a slave. Are risks always entitled to rewards?
People are entitled their basic needs on the basis of being human. And all should have social ownership of the economy in general, with no individual or group having sole ownership and thus being the only ones to profit from it.
It’s a double coincidence of wants. The workers aren’t able to provide any of the equipment or capital for the business. They would also rather have a steady predictable paycheque rather than jointly own a risky venture. Meanwhile the investor has capital they are willing to risk and are able to provide a steady source of income. The workers can’t make profit on their own without the capital.
The workers aren’t able to provide any of the equipment or capital for the business.
Aw, golly gee, I sure do wonder why they aren’t able to do this.
Capitalism enables people to become rich yes, but many workers do quite well, amassing large retirement accounts and saving their hard-earned money until they too can invest it in a business. The most wealthy and productive societies with the highest wages all of major aspects of their economies controlled by free markets. It’s not a coincidence.
I feel like you’re missing the point on purpose.
The workers do the work, yet the owner is the one who gets the money.
Why?
The labour share of income is 70% which is the majority of the money a business makes.
Labor Share of Net Income is Within Its Historical Range
Policymakers should remember that capital and labor are the main inputs to production, and they are complementary—more capital increases labor productivity, and more labor increases the return to capital. Ultimately, concerns over inequality should focus on differences within labor compensation rather than the split between labor and capital.
That’s less than the 100% they deserve for doing 100% of the work.
Please just acknowledge the fact that it’s mathematically impossible for a wage worker to actually receive what they made. The owner has to pay themselves, after all…
Well let’s say you and I start off on a new planet and we both have $10,000 to spend and the aliens of this planet will buy whatever we produce. You and I decide to compete with each other for business in the hole-digging business. You buy a new spade, and also some furnishings for your house and a new TV. I on the other hand stretch my budget and buy a backho and sacrifice some personal luxuries at home.
The going rate for a new hole is $100. We get down to business but despite you working 15 hour days, you’re only able to dig one hole but I am able to produce 4 holes in one day while only working 8 hours.
In this hypothetical scenario why am I making more money than you?
I didn’t say anything about labour theory of value. That’s a whole other discussion. And why in that scenario did we not just work together? Why compete?
Well the labour theory of value is where ‘surplus value’ comes from and is the theoretical underpinning of a lot of your argument.
Why didn’t we work together? Maybe we were on different sides of the planet or didn’t enjoy working together for many reasons. The point wasn’t that we weren’t working together. This was a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate that in this specific scenario the excess profits were the result of deploying capital. Even in communist societies part of the output that is generated is not wholly due to labour but due to the allocation of capital by the communist regime. For example in the USSR the mechanization of labour resulted in standard of living increases because labour without capital is of very low value. Capital without labour is also of very low value. A factory without workers would not work very well at all either. It’s the combined utilization of all the factors of production (Total factor productivity) that determines how much income can be generated in the economy. The larger the TFP the higher the wages. Economies with free markets have higher total favor productivity as the individual production decisions are dispersed among many business owners and workers rather than centralized in the hands of a bureaucratic elite.
Well the labour theory of value is where ‘surplus value’ comes from and is the theoretical underpinning of a lot of your argument.
LTV attacks pricing. Surplus value attacks wages. These are different discussions, dude.
Maybe we were on different sides of the planet or didn’t enjoy working together for many reasons.
You just keep having to fudge this hypothetical to make it make sense, eh?
This was a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate that in this specific scenario the excess profits were the result of deploying capital.
Bruh. Workers working by themselves to earn money for themselves isn’t capitalist exploitation. Who is being employed, here? Wtf are you saying? This isn’t wage labour.
Even in communist societies part of the output that is generated is not wholly due to labour but due to the allocation of capital by the communist regime.
If there is capital, it isn’t communism. If there is a regime, it isn’t communism. Please learn what communism is.
For example in the USSR
This is just too perfect.
Not communism.
the mechanization of labour resulted in standard of living increases because labour without capital is of very low value.
Labour without use is of no value. Did you not know that, and yet you have been talking about the LTV?
Are you about to make a “mud pie” argument?
Capital without labour is also of very low value.
Obviously. It is labour that creates value.
A factory without workers would not work very well at all either.
It wouldn’t work whatsoever.
It’s the combined utilization of all the factors of production (Total factor productivity) that determines how much income can be generated in the economy.
Don’t move the goalposts. I thought we were discussing value, not income?
Do you not know the difference? Is that why you think LTV is relevant to wages, rather than products?
The larger the TFP the higher the wages.
This is not a 1:1 correlation. The wages are determined by the whims of the owner, market forces, and any laws regarding minimums, overtime etc, not any rational calculation.
Economies with free markets have higher total favor productivity as the individual production decisions are dispersed among many business owners and workers rather than centralized in the hands of a bureaucratic elite.
Decisions in fact are managed by a bureaucratic elite. Capitalists. And productivity is a misleading figure, as the vast majority of the wealth created by it is siphoned by those very same capitalists.
Read: “I only subscribe to the economics of the oppressor class. If they refuse to accept a basic mathematical truth, so do I!”
If that were the case (which it isnt) I dont see a problem defending billionaires (and on the side also everybody’s freedom and justice)…
You can’t defend billionaires and justice at the same time
Why not? Capitalism is the most fair system to me.
What is the metric for fairness here? And what version of 'capitalism' are we talking about?
Fairness is subjective. To me it means: everyone is free to do what they like WITHOUT invading anybody elses freedom; if a person performs well, they should be rewarded well; everyone should have the same initial possibilities in life.
The version of capitalism I was talking about is capitalism with a regulated market. Basic needs should be covered (except if you refuse to contributr anything at all). Im pretty happy with the “social market economy” in Germany where I currently live.
everyone is free to do what they like WITHOUT invading anybody elses freedom
But how am I gonna get someone to work for me without invading their freedom to choose to do what they want?
But how am I gonna get someone to work for me without invading their freedom to choose to do what they want?
By offering them something in return…? Money for example, from which one can buy nice things.
That’s how we do it! That’s what gets people working for me - the threat that not doing so will put 'em on the street!
Not contributing anything at all wont work in any system or sosciety. Or in what system can I lay in bed all day and get everything I need for free?
By offering them something in return…? Money for example, from which one can buy nice things.
Who says I should do that? It’s my prerogative to do what I can to make money. Don’t try and regulate my ambition, you totalitarian communist.
Not contributing anything at all wont work in any system or sosciety. Or in what system can I lay in bed all day and get everything I need for free?
Absolutely nowhere, I say! Only people with gumption deserve to live!
You can do what you like but you asked me how to get people working for you so I made a proposal.
Do you actually have a point or are you just being ridiculous because you have no arguments?
I have plenty arguments. They were all written down for me by Adam Smith and Milton Friedman.
Whats your point? I explained why I find capitalism to be a fair system and further elaborated on what I concidered “fair”. What are you trying to say or are you just trolling?
I also agree it’s fair. It fairly allows me to extract value from people as I sit back and do nothing. That’s the pursuit of happiness in action, baby!
It sounds like you basically just described retirement, and I see nothing wrong with that. I’m investing in my future so that someday my capital increases to the point that I can live off the proceeds. I absolutely don’t want to work until I die.
you basically just described retirement
Lmao no. I described ownership of private property. You shouldn’t be able to get money just from owning something, especially if the money comes from people using that thing while you sit there doing nothing. It is the people using it that gives it value.