It is a pipe dream to think the US can ever get back onto the gold standard. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Everything from personal credit card debt to government borrowing debt.

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

#14868049
Perhaps if he was going to die, he might trade his labour for the bottle of water. Maybe Rancid wants a gardener. I don't know. But what I do know is that bottle of water has some worth.

Not if there is no demand for it, it doesn't. It will always have use-value, because there will always be people dying of thirst in a desert who need that bottle of water. But need is not the same thing as demand, in an economic sense. And its exchange-value, as Rancid pointed out, can easily fall to zero.
#14868052
I just think that worrying over the exchange value and stuff like that is entirely missing the point of everything we ought to value. The economy is supposed to be there to help people organize and improve their lives, it's not some God we must appease be realizing it's vague strictures on the backs of human lives, the very thing we ought to be most concerned about.

actual human beings and their lives > ideological commitment to an economic outcome.
#14868054
Potemkin wrote:Not if there is no demand for it, it doesn't.


The demand for that bottle exists. The guy in the desert wants it!!

It will always have use-value, because there will always be people dying of thirst in a desert who need that bottle of water. But need is not the same thing as demand, in an economic sense.


You're talking rubbish again. Just so you know, an economic sense doesn't necessarily have to be capitalism. There are many aspects in an economy. Monetary policy is just one of them. Labour is another. If someone is willing to do something for that bottle of water it has value. It is that simple.



...or it could be priceless. And that is the basics of supply and demand.
#14868055
The demand for that bottle exists. The guy in the desert wants it!!

He needs it, B0ycey. But his need will not show up in the marketplace as a demand if he can't afford to buy that bottle of water. What do you find difficult to understand about this? :eh:
#14868056
Potemkin wrote:He needs it, B0ycey. But his need will not show up in the marketplace as a demand if he can't afford to buy that bottle of water. What do you find difficult to understand about this? :eh:


You're only basing the bottles value in a monetary sense. What are you finding difficult to understand about that? The guy could do anything for that bottle of water. So it has value.

@mikema63, I'd like to think rancid would give the bottle away for nothing. So don't take this seriously. We are just trying to establish whether the US has the means to create wealth.
#14868058
Perhaps the man should sell himself into slavery, the bottle is worth his life after all in exchange. If only we would get out of the way if the free market he could live. :|

This argument is fundamentally a moral one. This matters and thus sort of power relationship going on here is one that plays out across the world all the time. Our fundamental basic needs and lack of power is used to exploit people all the time. Whether or not rancid in particular would take advantage of the man changes nothing about our values and structure as a society.

Arguing about exchange value on a moral question about what the economy ought to be for misses the point and elevates the exchange value to the only guiding principle in the exchange.
#14868059
You're only basing the bottles value in a monetary sense. What are you finding difficult to understand about that? The guy could do anything for that bottle of water. So it has value.

Not in the marketplace, it doesn't. Supply and demand is based on money, B0ycey. This is capitalism we're talking about, remember? It's all about the money. Even when they tell you it isn't about the money, it's about the money. If nobody is willing or able to exchange money for that bottle of water, then it has no exchange-value. And exchange-value is the only kind of value which matters under capitalism.

@mikema63, I'd like to think rancid would give the bottle away for nothing. So don't take this seriously. We are just trying to establish whether the US has the means to create wealth.

And my point is that the US may have the means to create wealth, but during a capitalist crisis of over-production those means would lie idle and untapped. What do you think the difference was between the Roaring Twenties and the Great Depression of the Thirties? Did America's factories suddenly disappear in a puff of smoke in 1929? Did America's workers suddenly turn into lazy bums overnight for no apparent reason? What do you think happened in 1929? :eh:
#14868061
Rancid wrote:Not true.

An item has value based on the perceived value of the item. The perceived value of an item can be 0 at times. A bottle of water in the desert is worth a lot. Yet, the same bottle of water will have 0 value if I try to sell it to my neighbors as they have easy access to water in their own homes. There can be situations where no one wants a bottle of water. Thus, it's value is 0.

This can happen with any item, or resource under capitalism.


There is a difference to the 'spot' exchange value, and the intrinsic value (long-term average value under normal conditions of production and exchange).

Marx's labor theory of value, while debatable with respect to the precise particulars, was perhaps the first mature elaboration of this principle.
#14868063
Potemkin wrote: If nobody is willing or able to exchange money for that bottle of water, then it has no exchange-value. And exchange-value is the only kind of value which matters under capitalism.


You can trade labour for money even under capitalism @Potemkin.

@mikema63, I think this point with the bottle of water highlights the issue people have with capitalism. I don't think anyone considers it a just system. But what would you replace it with? If there is no exchange value for that bottle of water then the guy in the desert would never have the opportunity to get his hands in it. Ultimately he will die without a capitalist system in place.
#14868064
Potemkin wrote:If he's in the desert already, then Rancid could just gather that sand for himself. Or, more likely, pay some peon to gather it for him. He doesn't need the guy dying of thirst in the desert, who probably isn't strong enough to even stand up let alone gather sand to pay for that bottle of water. You're just being silly now, B0ycey. :D


B0ycey wrote:Perhaps if he was going to die, he might trade his labour for the bottle of water. Maybe Rancid wants a gardener. I don't know. But what I do know is that bottle of water has some worth.


This is what happens when the examples in economics textbooks are taken to their logical conclusions.
#14868066
You can trade labour for money even under capitalism @Potemkin.

If he is dying of thirst then he will hardly be able to even stand up, B0ycey, let alone work. And what if there is no demand for his labour-power. What then?

@mikema63, I think this point with the bottle of water highlights the issue people have with capitalism. I don't think anyone considers it a just system. But what would you replace it with? If there is no exchange value for that bottle of water then the guy in the desert would never have the opportunity to get his hands in it. Ultimately he will die without a capitalist system in place.

Lol. People seemed to stay alive remarkably well under feudalism, B0ycey, not to mention under Communism in the Soviet Union. All those Soviet troops who kicked the Wehrmacht all the way back to Berlin were very much alive, so much so that were able to remove that status from large numbers of German troops. Lol.
#14868069
@B0ycey Why wouldn't he? Your literally talking about the relationship between a guy with water and a man dying of thirst. The man can give the dying one water.

This isn't even a magical thing that would have to replace all capitalism to make happen. It would just be an intervention to prevent a tragic outcome from an amoral system.

Aside from that it isn't even particularly difficult to imagine how water could be collected purified and distributed without an exchange value. What spectacular lack of imagination makes you think that the capitalist mechanisms for water distribution have existed since the dawn of humanity and must persist forever or we will no longer have water? :?:

Edit: My point being that exchange value beyond not applying well to the situation shouldn't even be a consideration. It's deeply immoral to talk about how much we can exploit a dying man for an extra bottle of water.
#14868072
Potemkin wrote:If he is dying of thirst then he will hardly be able to even stand up, B0ycey, let alone work. And what if there is no demand for his labour-power. What then?


He will die pote. He will die.

Lol. People seemed to stay alive remarkably well under feudalism, B0ycey, not to mention under Communism in the Soviet Union. All those Soviet troops who kicked the Wehrmacht all the way back to Berlin were very much alive, so much so that were able to remove that status from large numbers of German troops. Lol.


If we pretend that Soviet was Communism then you still need to realize that no working class worker got everything for nothing. They still had to work. The only difference is they worked for the state and not for free enterprise.
#14868074
He will die pote. He will die.

Indeed, and it is the capitalist system which will have killed him.

If we pretend that Soviet was Communism then you still need to realize that no working class worker got everything for nothing. They still had to work. The only difference is they worked for the state and not for free enterprise.

Nevertheless, they were able to work, and they were able to live. What is your point? :eh:
#14868079
mikema63 wrote:@B0ycey Why wouldn't he? Your literally talking about the relationship between a guy with water and a man dying of thirst. The man can give the dying one water.


If rancid happened to be walking by the thirty man with a bottle of water and didn't give it to him, yes there is a moral issue here. I was talking about supplying the area with water. If there was no benefit to do so, I doubt anyone would do it for only moral reasons. And that is capitalism.

Edit: My point being that exchange value beyond not applying well to the situation shouldn't even be a consideration. It's deeply immoral to talk about how much we can exploit a dying man for an extra bottle of water.


We weren't talking about morals only value. Nobody is saying that the guy shouldn't be given the bottle of water for nothing because of capitalism. We are trying to figure out whether the US has the means to create wealth.
#14868085
That even under socialism there is a supply and demand principle. Do you think the almighty Stalin would give his troops water if they didn't do what he commanded? Is that moral @mikema63?

People have needs, and those needs must be met. Otherwise, they will either go off and die in some corner somewhere, or they will rebel. The fact that people have basic needs means that this fact can be used to control or manipulate them, of course. But this happens under any economic or political system. After all, the peasants were told under feudalism that they could not live without the divinely-ordained monarch watching over them. That was both true and false at the same time. And now, we are being told that we cannot live without the Invisible Hand of the free market guiding us. And likewise, that is both true and false at the same time.
#14868086
Capitalism doesn't care about spot prices or other bullshit. It just is. Capitalism just is.

- If I can't get the bottle to the guy in the desert, it's of no value to him or me.
- If he cannot afford the bottle, it's of no value to him or me.
- Under an economic collapse, you can have the situation where no one can afford the bottle of water. It then becomes pointless for me to try and sell it, or to spent my energy in obtaining more of it. Now I'm out of work too. This is despite the fact, that some people might actually benefit from having a bottle of water.

Capitalism don't give a shit dog. "It's all about the Benjamins" to quote a famous rapper.
#14868111
That even under socialism there is a supply and demand principle. Do you think the almighty Stalin would give his troops water if they didn't do what he commanded? Is that moral @mikema63?


The choice isn't limited to stalin or full unregulated capitalism. :eh:

We weren't talking about morals only value. Nobody is saying that the guy shouldn't be given the bottle of water for nothing because of capitalism. We are trying to figure out whether the US has the means to create wealth.


You literally cannot talk about this issue without considering the moral dimension. Trying to remove that element and consider a fundamentally important aspect of society only in terms of impersonal and abstract ideas about value and wealth misses the point of society in it's entirely. It's a moral question first and foremost, there can never not be a moral dimension to the economy, maximizing value in a capitalist economy without considering it is a system we cannot and should not accept. You will have all the wealth in the world but what would it matter if you sit on a pile of the dead and suffering?

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

https://twitter.com/huwaidaarraf/status/1773389663[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

What wat0n is trying to distract from: https://tw[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1773436787622[…]