[The Immortal Goon]

I’m not saying too much stock should be put into it, but in a broad sense, people in a capitalist society used to work for virtually nothing, have their children work alongside them, and get shot if they complained.

After the World Wars you could have one person working an assembly line, own a few cars, own a home, and support four or five people, even sending them to college.

That’s been stripped away now to be impossible.

By the time people my age came up it was still, “as long as you go to college, you can be in the middle class.”

I was out and working part time at a movie theater so I went back. And back. And back again. Now I have several degrees and need to work three jobs to worry about whether I can pay rent each month (some terms are better than others though).

Just as we evolved on the Savannah to orient things in certain ways, I grew up middle class and even if I intellectually know that this is fucked, I can’t quite bring myself to joining a militia or something.

People younger than me, this generation in question, have grown up without that hope. The idea of working on the factory floor and being middle class is as dead for them as it was for me. But they’re getting their coffee poured by college grads that became indentured to giant banks for the right to compete with high schoolers for work.

Why would anyone be surprised that they look at their own future and think that the system is fucked?

And a final thing, this is how capitalism works. You go back before the World Wars, and this is it; a giant corporation and their buddies using the government to step on a common man’s neck while they cut the body and bleed it completely dry.

The problem is what I said earlier about myself—I grew up in the wake of this unusual part of the system when there was relative egalitarianism because of the Wars and the Cold War. That’s done now, and it’s going back to a more natural state of capitalism.

[neopagan]

I'm glad you put a caveat of doubt on the poll. Just the same, I don't know how wide your horizon is, but mine is not nearly so depressing. Certainly the rich are getting richer, and society is changing, especially in the way we earn our living. I live on an average street that is mainly occupied by young families. Their two car garages are so full of stuff that they have to keep two or three vehicles on the street or in the drive way. Then there are dirt bikes and boats on trailers. These families are mainly those of tradesmen and while they are generally renters, they certainly have not given up on capitalist system. In fact, there is a waiting list of people who want to come to Australia, legally or illegally.

[Hindsite]

I'm glad you put a caveat of doubt on the poll. Just the same, I don't know how wide your horizon is, but mine is not nearly so depressing. Certainly the rich are getting richer, and society is changing, especially in the way we earn our living. I live on an average street that is mainly occupied by young families. Their two car garages are so full of stuff that they have to keep two or three vehicles on the street or in the drive way. Then there are dirt bikes and boats on trailers. These families are mainly those of tradesmen and while they are generally renters, they certainly have not given up on capitalist system. In fact, there is a waiting list of people who want to come to Australia, legally or illegally.

Until your last sentence, I thought you were describing a location in the USA. Capitalism has made my country great, but in recent times it has been threatened by too mush socialism and communism. This is one reason out of many that I voted for Trump. It is clear that he believes in Capitalism and it's power to make America great, greater than ever before.

[Truth To Power]

Well, it's a combination of their not being versed in exactly what the various economic models are;

Right. Capitalism and socialism are united in opposing justice, and in pretending that the other is the only alternative. They are like two crooked palookas pretending to fight while actually holding each other up. Being asked to choose between capitalism and socialism is like being asked if you want nitric acid in your coffee or lye.

the fact that we have a hybrid economy, it's not just capitalism; and the question being incredibly vague.

It's capitalism relieved by massive government interventions to rescue the people from the effects of capitalism.

It's okay, though, a lot of leftists grow out of it when they become adults and are expected to pay for everything.

They learn they won't be getting justice, and not to expect it.

[Hindsite]

Right. Capitalism and socialism are united in opposing justice, and in pretending that the other is the only alternative. They are like two crooked palookas pretending to fight while actually holding each other up. Being asked to choose between capitalism and socialism is like being asked if you want nitric acid in your coffee or lye.

It's capitalism relieved by massive government interventions to rescue the people from the effects of capitalism.

They learn they won't be getting justice, and not to expect it.

Then communism must be hell.

[Truth To Power]

Then communism must be hell.

It would be, if it were ever implemented on a large scale. The small-scale experiments have shown its stability and tolerability tend to be inversely related to size.

This is one reason out of many that I voted for Trump. It is clear that he believes in Capitalism and it's power to make America great, greater than ever before.

He does suffer from that delusion. How fortunate for his legacy that, as Adam Smith observed, "There is a deal of ruin in a country."

[Truth To Power]

There are more than just land and capital for the means of production.

There is also labor, but it can't be owned, so you are again trying to evade by introducing irrelevancies.

Let us know what you come up with!

Get over yourself.

There are lots of things for you to learn if you keep going!

Right back atcha, champ.

Using this tire analogy you made up, it seems that everyone is explaining to you that their tires are full of air but you refuse to believe it because you can't see the air.

No. I am aware that their tires are full of air. THEY and YOU are not aware that the air has to be under pressure to make the tire round and resilient, and thus able to perform its designed function.

We try to explain the nature of air and inflation and you accuse us of making this too difficult for you to understand.

No. You insist that having air in the tire is enough, and pressure is not needed because a flat tire gives better traction.

But don't worry, joining a discussion board like this might help you understand!

I wish I could be so optimistic on your account.

Have you thought about what kinds of things you'd need to build a box?

<sigh> If you think you have a point (unlikely), try making it.
<supercilious blather elided>

I mentioned the Atlantic Revolutions but this was understandably a difficult concept for you.

No, it just took me by surprise because it was unrelated to the first experiment in bourgeois government, which was what I assumed we were talking about because that is what you said. Sorry for not being able to keep up with your evasions and subject-changing.

So we had to spend some pages getting you to understand what "bourgeois" meant.

No, we took some pages establishing which parts of your claim were most incorrect.

Remember when I asked you to think about what things were needed to make a box? This goes into the "means of production." Once you get back to me about the kinds of things you'd need to make a toy box, we can discuss what that means.

It's not my job to provide arguments you can't provide.

For right now, we can assume that "trade" does not mean "a social order dominated by capitalists."

No one claimed it did. But the Hanseatic towns were certainly governed by capitalists. So you have to evade again.

I suppose it's my fault that you're confused because I let you off the hook for thinking of three ways that Egyptian slavery might have been different than American slavery.

No, it's your fault for disingenuously pretending that it was my job to provide arguments for you.

If you can think of these things and think of things you'd need to use to make a box, we can go further and maybe help you understand.

I wish I could be so optimistic about your prospects for understanding, but the stubborn, supercilious certainty with which you cling to error does not give much room for hope.

We're talking about the means of production, not just land and capital. Think about the things you'd need to use to build a toy box

<yawn> I'd need land, capital and labor, of which the first two can be owned and the last not.
<supercilious blather elided>

I'm sure you tried really hard, but you weren't exactly right. You were close though!

No, I was correct.

I'm not pretending

You are not doing a very good job of pretending, put it that way.

No, my students wouldn't know how to use basic terms or the most rudimentary parts of economics. So I assign them projects to help them understand.

Well, I am not one of your students, so it is not responsive when you presume to assign me homework instead of answering questions.

Let's think back to the analogy about the car tires and you insisting that they're flat because you can't see the air and everyone else explaining that tires don't work that way.

That's not the analogy. You changed it. I insist the tires are flat because I can see they are flat. Tires work better pumped up, but you claim the atmospheric air pressure in them is enough, and flat tires get better traction.

It's not that everyone else fails to understand tires in the scenario.

Yes, it is.

Do you need some extra help?

Only in forbearance.

[The Immortal Goon]

There is also labor, but it can't be owned, so you are again trying to evade by introducing irrelevancies.

But labor can be sold. Now you're avoiding the question, what kinds of things might you need to build a box?

No. I am aware that their tires are full of air. THEY and YOU are not aware that the air has to be under pressure to make the tire round and resilient, and thus able to perform its designed function.

No. You insist that having air in the tire is enough, and pressure is not needed because a flat tire gives better traction.

You're pushing the analogy too far. The basic problem is that everyone else seems to think that some of these economic issues are obvious. You seem to think that they're very difficult and that everybody else is lying about them. I'm trying to help you see that we're not lying, it's just that you need a little extra help!

I wish I could be so optimistic [that joining a discussion board can help you learn] on your account.

I've learned a lot from discussion boards like this one! You just need to accept that it's okay not to know things, and that you can learn more!

<sigh> If you think you have a point (unlikely), try making it.
<supercilious blather elided>

You don't seem to know what "the means of production" is referring to. I'm trying to help! So what makes slavery in Ancient Egypt different than it was in the United States? Three differences may do the trick here!

And if you wanted to build a box for toys, what would you need?

Let us know when you have some answers, and then maybe we can help explain some of these concepts you don't understand

No, it just took me by surprise because it was unrelated to the first experiment in bourgeois government, which was what I assumed we were talking about because that is what you said. Sorry for not being able to keep up with your evasions and subject-changing.

It was explained why the English Civil War was included with the Atlantic Revolutions. But this is pretty high level stuff for you right now, let's concentrate on some of the basics!

No, we took some pages establishing which parts of your claim were most incorrect.

It's not my job to provide arguments you can't provide.

Lashing out at me because you had difficulty defining "bourgousie" isn't very nice!

No one claimed it did. But the Hanseatic towns were certainly governed by capitalists. So you have to evade again.

Once you can define "means of production" you might see things a little differently

No, it's your fault for disingenuously pretending that it was my job to provide arguments for you.

I'm not asking you to providing arguments for me, but you seem to be having difficulty with some very basic concepts and I'm trying to help you understand.

I wish I could be so optimistic about your prospects for understanding, but the stubborn, supercilious certainty with which you cling to error does not give much room for hope.

You would need to add something to the exchange instead of simply being offended that I'm trying to help you understand some of these basic concepts.

<yawn> I'd need land, capital and labor, of which the first two can be owned and the last not.
<supercilious blather elided>

I know this can seem difficult, but don't get too tired trying to think of this!

Now, would you really need land to build a box right now? What other things might you need if you imagine doing it right now?

No, I was correct.

The fact that you think this justifies scowling things down and getting to a very basic level of things.

Well, I am not one of your students, so it is not responsive when you presume to assign me homework instead of answering questions.

Answers have been provided, you just seem to not understand them. And you've admitted that you don't understand basic economic answers given to you by almost any ideology. It's okay to not understand things, what is not okay is to not even try!

[Steve_American]

My 1st post.
Millennials are rightfully mad as hell. Some bame the Baby Boomers, some blame capitalism, and some blame the Repud Party, etc.
To my way of thinking what has happened is -- after the good times of the 50s and 60s, America moved to the right. The vast conspiracy led by "The Family" and corps manipulated the voters into buying a new economic model called "Neo-liberalism". This led to flat wages while productivity and corp profits still rose.
The flat wages and more going to the rich [as capital gains or above the Soc. Sec cap, and so not FICA taxed] meant that less and less of GDP went into the SS Trust Fund. It should have about $1.5 T in it now and FICA tax collections should be about 50% to 60% higher each year, because wages should be 60% higher now. Mellinnials would be doing a lot better if their wages were 60% higher [inflation adjusted].
The flat wages squeezed the mass of the people and they reacted by buying the need to cut taxes and this led to rising college costs and student loans. Both of these hurt Millennials.

Neo-liberalism is not proven because macro-economics can't prove anything. It can't use the scientific method because it can't do experiments where the variables are controlled. When it uses logic to make proofs it must start with assumptions or premises . These must ALL be accepted as obviously True for the proof to be valid. However, have any of you ever seen a complete list of the assumptions used by any economics theory? I never have. Euclid provided the complete list of definitions, axiom and postulates that he needed. Economists don't do this because some of their assumptions are obviously false and they want to hide this fact.

I *know* that neo-liberalism needs to be supplanted by a better economic model. The IMF in mid-2016 published a paper in which it admitted the austerity and some other things it espoused are wrong or don't work as expected.
I suggest that you-all check out Modern Money Theory, or MMT. Prof. Wray has a primer on line you can study. MMT holds that deficits are a good thing. That the only worry with deficits is inflation and that only happens when there is real full employment [= low unemployment and no-one discouraged and not looking for work]. It holds that austerity doesn't work because cutting Gov. spending also cuts the incomes of someone and so they pay less taxes [as well spend less cutting the incomes of many others]. Less tax revenue means the Gov.needs to cut spending more as revenue falls. {I claim that this would not be true if most taxes were on wealth (land, buildings, industrial machines, etc. and was not reduced when their market values fall). But, modern tax systems tax income and consumption; both of these fall as GDP falls and GDP falls when the Gov. cuts spending.}
MMT holds that fiat currency, like dollars, have value because of taxes. That without taxes fiat money will not hold its value, there will be high inflation. It holds that when the Gov. runs a surplus that this sucks money out of the economy [and doesn't put it back with spending]. Because much of the current debt is held by insurance comp., banks, foreign nations, etc.; this money is not taxed; and there is no mechanism to move it from its current holders to the mass of the people so they can spend it so it is taxed; that therefore the surplus will soon cause a drop in consumer spending which causes a drop in GDP which causes a recession to start. This recession should be fought with an increase in Gov. spending, but this is not possible without ending the surplus. Thus the debt can never be paid off except by creating cash out of thin air or inflation or both. Neither of which is a good thing. But then, MMT holds that it never needs be paid off. [Note that from 1840 (yes 1840) until now there has always been a US Gov. debt. It has never needed to be paid off for over 175 years.]
If you want to know more google MMT and Wray.

Millennials should not reject "Capitalism", they should reject Neo-liberlaism.

[Truth To Power]

But labor can be sold.

But when Marx talked about private or collective ownership of the means of production, he was not talking about labor but land and capital goods, so you are evading again.

Now you're avoiding the question,

Because it is a trap.

what kinds of things might you need to build a box?

At a minimum you'd need land -- a location and raw materials -- and labor; and if you wanted to do it quickly, easily, or well, you'd need capital goods.

You're pushing the analogy too far.

No, you are trying to evade its point.

The basic problem is that everyone else seems to think that some of these economic issues are obvious.

And they are obvious. They are just obviously not as socialists and capitalists claim.

You seem to think that they're very difficult

That is a fabrication on your part. I have stated the fact that socialists beginning with Marx and subsequently neoclassical apologists for capitalism have denied something clear, simple, and obvious, and replaced it with something more complex and obscure in order to prevent understanding. It is not difficult. They have just tried to MAKE it difficult by sabotaging clear thought.

and that everybody else is lying about them.

I didn't say everyone was lying. Some have lied, and many have believed the lies.

I'm trying to help you see that we're not lying, it's just that you need a little extra help!

If you are not lying, then you are repeating lies.

I've learned a lot from discussion boards like this one!

But not enough...

You just need to accept that it's okay not to know things, and that you can learn more!

Despicable. I am the one here who has demonstrated willingness to learn. Not you.

You don't seem to know what "the means of production" is referring to.

It refers to land (natural resources) and capital goods.

I'm trying to help!

You are trying to prevent understanding because that is the first requirement of socialism.

So what makes slavery in Ancient Egypt different than it was in the United States? Three differences may do the trick here!

Please explain how such differences could be relevant to the issue.

And if you wanted to build a box for toys, what would you need?

See above.

Let us know when you have some answers, and then maybe we can help explain some of these concepts you don't understand

Despicable.

Lashing out at me because you had difficulty defining "bourgousie" isn't very nice!

I did not have difficulty defining (or, unlike a certain soi-disant professional editor, spelling) "bourgeoisie," and I upbraided you because of your practice of relentless, calculated insult to my intelligence.

Once you can define "means of production" you might see things a little differently

Nope.

I'm not asking you to providing arguments for me,

Then why do you insist that I answer questions I pose to you?

but you seem to be having difficulty with some very basic concepts and I'm trying to help you understand.

I'm not having difficulty. I understand them very well. They are just invalid and dishonest.

You would need to add something to the exchange instead of simply being offended that I'm trying to help you understand some of these basic concepts.

I'm offended by your relentless, calculated insults to my intelligence, like:

I know this can seem difficult, but don't get too tired trying to think of this!

Now, would you really need land to build a box right now?

Definitely.

What other things might you need if you imagine doing it right now?

Some machinery would be handy. And better skills than I actually possess.

The fact that you think this justifies scowling things down and getting to a very basic level of things.

That's where the error is, so that's where we have to go.

Answers have been provided, you just seem to not understand them.

Or understand them too well.

And you've admitted that you don't understand basic economic answers given to you by almost any ideology.

I don't understand how people can turn off their brains to that extent. I just can't do it.

It's okay to not understand things, what is not okay is to not even try!

Right back atcha, champ.

[Godstud]

@Truth To Power Try responding to whole paragraphs, and not just individual sentences or parts thereof. The way you post is very confusing to most people, is a wall of text, and often you take things out of context because you are responding to single sentences. Try it. It'll work just as well, and your arguments will make more sense when people see what you are actually responding to.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power Try responding to whole paragraphs, and not just individual sentences or parts thereof. The way you post is very confusing to most people, is a wall of text, and often you take things out of context because you are responding to single sentences. Try it. It'll work just as well, and your arguments will make more sense when people see what you are actually responding to.

I don't understand how it could be easier to follow my argument when you have to look back through a whole paragraph and figure out -- maybe erroneously -- which sentence I am responding to. I'm all about clarity, of both thinking and expression, so my posting style reflects that: it is designed to give an absolutely minimal opportunity for misunderstanding both by me and my readers. I have been obtusely -- deliberately -- misinterpreted too many times to take any chances. I'm sorry if you find it confusing, but I don't intend to change it. My time is too valuable.

[Pants-of-dog]

And yet it does the exact oppposite, making your posts as clear as mud.

[Truth To Power]

The vast conspiracy led by "The Family" and corps manipulated the voters into buying a new economic model called "Neo-liberalism". This led to flat wages while productivity and corp profits still rose.

The cause of flat or falling wages amid rising productivity was thoroughly explained by Henry George 140 years ago in "Progress and Poverty." It is simply an artifact of the Law of Rent. Today we can improve on George's explanation by adding in the effects of the Henry George Theorem, which is named for him but of which he was unaware.

Economists don't do this because some of their assumptions are obviously false and they want to hide this fact.

They also use invalid definitions that make it impossible to think about the salient facts. Modern mainstream neoclassical economics is like mechanics before Newton defined the difference between weight and mass: the necessary concepts do not exist. But in the case of neoclassical economics, at least some of the necessary concepts DID exist, but have been removed deliberately from the discipline (one cannot in good conscience call it a science).

I suggest that you-all check out Modern Money Theory, or MMT.

MMT at least understands how our money is created, but misunderstands the role of taxation. Like:

MMT holds that deficits are a good thing.

That the only worry with deficits is inflation and that only happens when there is real full employment [= low unemployment and no-one discouraged and not looking for work].

Tell that to Zimbabwe, where inflation in quintuple digits occurred alongside unemployment that nearly reached triple digits...

It holds that austerity doesn't work because cutting Gov. spending also cuts the incomes of someone and so they pay less taxes [as well spend less cutting the incomes of many others].

Misunderstanding taxes.

Less tax revenue means the Gov.needs to cut spending more as revenue falls. {I claim that this would not be true if most taxes were on wealth (land, buildings, industrial machines, etc. and was not reduced when their market values fall). But, modern tax systems tax income and consumption; both of these fall as GDP falls and GDP falls when the Gov. cuts spending.}

MMT doesn't understand this difference in taxes.

MMT holds that fiat currency, like dollars, have value because of taxes.

Which is incorrect in two ways: almost no dollars are fiat currency, and they have value because they are legal tender for all debts, not just tax liabilities.

That without taxes fiat money will not hold its value, there will be high inflation.

That depends on how much fiat money is issued relative to economic growth. It's possible if government is very small.

It holds that when the Gov. runs a surplus that this sucks money out of the economy [and doesn't put it back with spending].

Because it says all money is debt, which is false.

Because much of the current debt is held by insurance comp., banks, foreign nations, etc.; this money is not taxed; and there is no mechanism to move it from its current holders to the mass of the people so they can spend it so it is taxed; that therefore the surplus will soon cause a drop in consumer spending which causes a drop in GDP which causes a recession to start. This recession should be fought with an increase in Gov. spending, but this is not possible without ending the surplus. Thus the debt can never be paid off except by creating cash out of thin air or inflation or both. Neither of which is a good thing.

There is no reason to think creating cash "out of thin air" as Lincoln did with the greenbacks necessarily leads to inflation or is not a good thing.

But then, MMT holds that it never needs be paid off. [Note that from 1840 (yes 1840) until now there has always been a US Gov. debt. It has never needed to be paid off for over 175 years.]

But it occasions an interest expense: unearned income for banksters.

Millennials should not reject "Capitalism", they should reject Neo-liberlaism.

Neoclassical economics is the propaganda arm of neoliberalism, which is the policy environment of finance capitalism. So people need to reject capitalism, but also understand why socialism is even worse.

[The Immortal Goon]

But when Marx talked about private or collective ownership of the means of production, he was not talking about labor but land and capital goods, so you are evading again.

This is why I was asking you what you might need to use to build a tool box. Can you think of anything yet?

You are having a lot of trouble, so this might be a little over your head.

But I said that labor could be sold. You object to this, but here is the second time that Marx mentioned "means of production:"

The historical conditions of its existence are by no means given with the mere circulation of money and commodities. It can spring into life, only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence meets in the market with the free labourer selling his labour-power. And this one historical condition comprises a world’s history. Capital, therefore, announces from its first appearance a new epoch in the process of social production.

See, labor can be sold

You are having a good deal of trouble, so let's connect this to another question you are having trouble with: What are three ways that Egyptian slavery might be different than capitalist slavery?

[I can't answer your questions] Because it is a trap.

It isn't a trap to learn new things. Give it a try! You won't be so scared to discuss these things that everyone else seems to know if you learn it too!

At a minimum you'd need land -- a location and raw materials -- and labor; and if you wanted to do it quickly, easily, or well, you'd need capital goods.

And what else might you need? What might you hold with your hands? I know this is hard, but keep thinking!

No, you are trying to evade its point.

Nah, as mentioned, everyone seems to understand these basic concepts except for you. There's nothing to evade for me. I'm trying to get you to be able to discuss things with the rest of us!

And they are obvious. They are just obviously not as socialists and capitalists claim...I have stated the fact that socialists beginning with Marx and subsequently neoclassical apologists for capitalism have denied something clear, simple, and obvious, and replaced it with something more complex and obscure in order to prevent understanding. It is not difficult. They have just tried to MAKE it difficult by sabotaging clear thought.

It may seem obvious that the world is flat, but with a little bit of work you can see that it is obvious that it is actually round. Try!

I didn't say everyone was lying. Some have lied, and many have believed the lies...If you are not lying, then you are repeating lies.

But once you understand basic economics, you will see that nobody is lying, they just understand some things that you have trouble with.

[I have learned a lot from political boards] But not enough...

I agree! I know there is always more to learn. When you start understanding some of the basics, you will see that too! It's rather exhilarating and you don't need to be scared!

Despicable. I am the one here who has demonstrated willingness to learn. Not you.

Then maybe we can go back eleven pages and you can come up with three ways in which Egyptian slavery might be different than American slavery. Then I can help you understand these things you are having trouble with.

It [means of production] refers to land (natural resources) and capital goods.

Yup, and a little bit more. Did you try reading the document that I supplied? I'm guessing it will be too hard for you yet, but you'll never know unless you try!

You are trying to prevent understanding because that is the first requirement of socialism.

I am very much trying to help you, as has been clear. You don't need to be afraid!

Please explain how such differences [between Ancient Egyptian and American slavery] could be relevant to the issue.

It will help you understand how a different means of production can affect institutions. At least I'm hoping, no doubt this is a little complicated for you at this level, but you seem so insistent.

Despicable.

It is never despicable to get help from someone that knows more about a topic!

I did not have difficulty defining (or, unlike a certain soi-disant professional editor, spelling) "bourgeoisie," and I upbraided you because of your practice of relentless, calculated insult to my intelligence.

You have had a lot of difficulty defining this. And you seem to resort to rather childish means to try to embrace your ignorance. It's true, I don't use a spell-checker and I sometimes make a typo.

Maybe you should try turning a spell-checker off, it might help you learn too!

Regardless, just because you don't know a lot about this topic doesn't mean that I'm trying to insult you, nobody is.

Nope [I refuse to be able to define "means of production"]

You shouldn't give up. Learning is fun!

Then why do you insist that I answer questions I pose to you?

...I'm not having difficulty. I understand them very well. They are just invalid and dishonest.

I want you to be able to understand what the rest of the board understands.

I'm offended by your relentless, calculated insults to my intelligence, like:

Just because you don't understand what the rest of us are talking about doesn't mean that we are insulting you!

Some machinery would be handy [to build your toy box]. And better skills than I actually possess.

Tools? Now go back to the beginning of this post and see what tools might have to do with creating things...Do you think that having complicated machines might make a different society than one without them?

That's where the error is, so that's where we have to go.

I don't understand how people can turn off their brains to that extent. I just can't do it.

It's completely possible that you're doing it and not even know it. The first thing to do is to accept that you might be wrong.

Respond if you need more help, we're starting to make some real progress here?

[Truth To Power]

This is why I was asking you what you might need to use to build a tool box. Can you think of anything yet?

Why are you disingenuously pretending that I have not already identified what I would need -- land and labor at a minimum, and equipment (tools) of some kind if I wanted to do it quickly or easily, or do a good job?

You are having a lot of trouble, so this might be a little over your head.

That is nothing but another deliberate, calculated insult not only to my intelligence, but to that of anyone else who might be masochistic enough to read something you write.

But I said that labor could be sold.

That doesn't make it a means of production that can be owned. Labor is the ACT of production, not the means of production.

You object to this, but here is the second time that Marx mentioned "means of production":
"...only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence meets in the market with the free labourer selling his labour-power."

So Marx stated explicitly here that the "free" labourer is not an owner of the means of production. So I am right, labor is not a means of production, and I am consequently left wondering what on earth you are on about.

See, labor can be sold

See, that's irrelevant.

What are three ways that Egyptian slavery might be different than capitalist slavery?

I'm not playing that game. If you have an argument (you don't), then make it.

It isn't a trap to learn new things. Give it a try!

Falling into a trap might help you learn a new thing -- but then you are in a trap.

You won't be so scared to discuss these things that everyone else seems to know if you learn it too!

Everyone else THINKS they know. They don't seem to me to know it.

And what else might you need? What might you hold with your hands? I know this is hard, but keep thinking!

I've already told you: raw materials. Stop dishonestly pretending I have not answered your questions and start answering a few.

Nah, as mentioned, everyone seems to understand these basic concepts except for you.

Nope. They think they understand but are confused, as I have demonstrated.

There's nothing to evade for me.

Wrong. You are a socialist, so you have to evade the fact that the owners of capital goods like factories contribute to production.

I'm trying to get you to be able to discuss things with the rest of us!

You are trying to prevent the discussion from being informative.

It may seem obvious that the world is flat, but with a little bit of work you can see that it is obvious that it is actually round. Try!

You are the one who needs to find a willingness to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.

But once you understand basic economics, you will see that nobody is lying, they just understand some things that you have trouble with.

They are definitely lying, and they do not understand economics, which is why large-scale socialism always fails in practice.

I know there is always more to learn.

But refuse to learn any of it.

When you start understanding some of the basics, you will see that too! It's rather exhilarating and you don't need to be scared!

<yawn> Despicable.

Then maybe we can go back eleven pages and you can come up with three ways in which Egyptian slavery might be different than American slavery. Then I can help you understand these things you are having trouble with.

Thank you for admitting that you have never had any intention of "helping" me.

Did you try reading the document that I supplied?

Which one?

I'm guessing it will be too hard for you yet, but you'll never know unless you try!

You know very well it won't be too hard for me.

I am very much trying to help you, as has been clear.

It has been clear that you are not.

You don't need to be afraid!

You don't need to insult both my intelligence and the intelligence of anyone else who might be masochistic enough to be reading your filth.

It will help you understand how a different means of production can affect institutions.

Assuming the conclusion. You'll have to do better than that.

At least I'm hoping, no doubt this is a little complicated for you at this level, but you seem so insistent.

It's a kind of sickness, I suppose....

It is never despicable to get help from someone that knows more about a topic!

It's despicable to exploit another's honorable intentions to insult them and waste their time.

You have had a lot of difficulty defining this.

Garbage.

And you seem to resort to rather childish means to try to embrace your ignorance.

This, from you??

It's true, I don't use a spell-checker and I sometimes make a typo.

You also don't know how to use "however" as an adverb, and can neither spell nor define "plagiarism."

Maybe you should try turning a spell-checker off, it might help you learn too!

Socialism requires the brain to be turned off, and you are good at it.

Regardless, just because you don't know a lot about this topic doesn't mean that I'm trying to insult you, nobody is.

Everyone reading this knows you are trying to insult me, including you.

You shouldn't give up. Learning is fun!

How would you know?

I want you to be able to understand what the rest of the board understands.

I'm not going to believe nonsense just because others do.

Just because you don't understand what the rest of us are talking about doesn't mean that we are insulting you!

Right: it's your calculated, supercilious sneers that mean you are insulting me.

Tools? Now go back to the beginning of this post and see what tools might have to do with creating things...

<yawn> Tools are capital, one of the means of production Marx and other socialists say should be collectively owned. Why are you pretending I have not already told you that?

Do you think that having complicated machines might make a different society than one without them?

Depends if it is a socialist society. The USSR had lots of complicated machines, but it was still a hell-hole of tyranny, poverty and stagnation very little different from Maoist China, which had few.

That's where the error is, so that's where we have to go.

Right. But you won't go there.

It's completely possible that you're doing it and not even know it. The first thing to do is to accept that you might be wrong.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

Respond if you need more help, we're starting to make some real progress here?

Not that I've noticed.

[The Immortal Goon]

Why are you disingenuously pretending that I have not already identified what I would need -- land and labor at a minimum, and equipment (tools) of some kind if I wanted to do it quickly or easily, or do a good job?

I’m not pretending, you actually are having a lot of trouble

That is nothing but another deliberate, calculated insult not only to my intelligence, but to that of anyone else who might be masochistic enough to read something you write.

You aren’t the first person to try and lash out at people that have a stronger grasp on a topic that you.

But once you know enough, you’ll see you don’t have to be defensive about not knowing everything. Learning will make you more confident to admit the things you don’t know.

That doesn't make it a means of production that can be owned. Labor is the ACT of production, not the means of production.

Don’t get ahead of yourself, this stuff has been a lot of trouble for you. What did we just say about labour being something that can be bought and sold? You can look back, it’s not cheating

So Marx stated explicitly here that the "free" labourer is not an owner of the means of production. So I am right, labor is not a means of production, and I am consequently left wondering what on earth you are on about.

I know you are wondering, that’s why I’m trying to help you understand!

If the labourer does not own his labour, who do you think does?

See, that's irrelevant.

Sometimes things you don’t understand seem not to fit. That’s part of learning!

I'm not playing that game. If you have an argument (you don't), then make it.

You are having a lot of trouble with some VERY basic concepts we need to define before I even begin to make an argument.

Falling into a trap might help you learn a new thing -- but then you are in a trap.

Everyone else THINKS they know. They don't seem to me to know it.

You feel that everybody else must be laying a trap for you because you don’t understand what we’re talking about. I want to help you!

I've already told you: raw materials. Stop dishonestly pretending I have not answered your questions and start answering a few.

Very good! And, when you said that, I asked you to think about how simple tools (like a hammer) might be different than more complicated ones (like your parent’s car).

Do you think that a society with access to more advanced tools might be different than one with only simple tools?

Nope. They think they understand but are confused, as I have demonstrated.

Is it more logical to assume everyone in the world is both confused and lying to you, of that you don’t understand what the rest of us are discussing?

Sometimes it’s hard to admit that you don’t know some things, but it will help you learn!

Wrong. You are a socialist, so you have to evade the fact that the owners of capital goods like factories contribute to production.

Do I? Or are you lashing out because you are having trouble with these topics?

You are trying to prevent the discussion from being informative.

You are the one who needs to find a willingness to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.

If only you find something self evident and assume everyone else in the world is lying, maybe you need to examine your views. It can be scary to admit that you might be wrong, but it’s something you’ll have to do a lot when you grow up, and it’s fine!

<yawn> Despicable.

These very basic discussions about basic topics seem to be complicated enough that you are getting tired. But keep going!

Thank you for admitting that you have never had any intention of "helping" me.

I am doing my best. I may not be perfect, but I am trying to help you.

You know very well it won't be too hard for me.

It has been clear that you are not.

You don't need to insult both my intelligence and the intelligence of anyone else who might be masochistic enough to be reading your filth.

You shouldn’t feel insulted because you don’t know something. Not even I know everything!

It's despicable to exploit another's honorable intentions to insult them and waste their time.

Learning is never a waste of time!

You also don't know how to use "however" as an adverb, and can neither spell nor define "plagiarism."

As mentioned, I don’t use auto-correct. It’s because I write in both American and European English. Sometimes typos happen.

And that’s okay! Once you know more you too will be confident to admit that you make mistakes sometimes!

Socialism requires the brain to be turned off, and you are good at it.

I am good at socialism. And your brain turned off comment is typical of children, you’re completely normal!

Everyone reading this knows you are trying to insult me, including you.

I come to this board to discuss things, and I’m trying to help you understand so we can discuss things!

I'm not going to believe nonsense just because others do.

It’s good to have convictions. But you should also be careful to understand what others are trying to say. If you can’t understand it, you should see it as an opportunity to learn, not as an insult to you!

Right: it's your calculated, supercilious sneers that mean you are insulting me.

Just because I know things that you don’t doesn’t mean that I’m sneering at you! I’m trying to help you learn so we can have a discussion!

<yawn> Tools are capital, one of the means of production Marx and other socialists say should be collectively owned. Why are you pretending I have not already told you that?

Don’t get tired yet!

Depends if it is a socialist society. The USSR had lots of complicated machines, but it was still a hell-hole of tyranny, poverty and stagnation very little different from Maoist China, which had few.

Let’s first keep concentrating on some of the basic words you don’t understand!

In general, do you think there are differences that complicated machines might make in a society? (Hint: I’ve been asking you about Ancient Egypt and the US and how slavery may have been different in each)

[Truth To Power]

I’m not pretending, you actually are having a lot of trouble

I repeat: why are you so disingenuously PRETENDING that I did not answer your question when I clearly did? Is it to create a false impression that I am not responding to your questions when it is actually you who are not responding to mine?

You aren’t the first person to try and lash out at people that have a stronger grasp on a topic that you.

Or at people who are employing disingenuous and manipulative rhetorical tricks to create an inaccurate appearance that they do...

But once you know enough, you’ll see you don’t have to be defensive about not knowing everything. Learning will make you more confident to admit the things you don’t know.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

Don’t get ahead of yourself, this stuff has been a lot of trouble for you. What did we just say about labour being something that can be bought and sold? You can look back, it’s not cheating

Looking back, I see that you are again falsely and disingenuously pretending that I did not say what I clearly did say. You are falsely and disingenuously pretending that just because people can buy and sell services, they can OWN services, even though services do not exist except in the moment they are rendered. Why are you so disingenuously pretending that just because a service can be sold for money, it can be owned, like an asset that can be liquidated? Is it because you are fully aware that your position is objectively false, and you are trying to deceive your readers? Could that be the reason? Help me out, here.

I know you are wondering, that’s why I’m trying to help you understand!

Do you think that constantly pretending I have not said what I clearly did say, and that facts of objective physical reality, such as that services cannot be owned, are not true, is helping me to understand anything other than the depth and sincerity of your commitment to deceiving your readers?

If the labourer does not own his labour, who do you think does?

No one can own labor, as it does not exist except in the moment it is being performed. Labor is human effort devoted to production. Human effort is not something that can be owned. You know this, of course, but you are disingenuously pretending that you do not know it because you are trying to deceive your readers (you are aware that you are not deceiving me).

Sometimes things you don’t understand seem not to fit. That’s part of learning!

Same disingenuous pretense.

You are having a lot of trouble with some VERY basic concepts we need to define before I even begin to make an argument.

Yet somehow, you do not see fit to OFFER any such definitions....

You feel that everybody else must be laying a trap for you because you don’t understand what we’re talking about. I want to help you!

I know that YOU are laying traps for me because I DO understand what you are talking about -- and you know it.

Very good! And, when you said that, I asked you to think about how simple tools (like a hammer) might be different than more complicated ones (like your parent’s car).

The more complex ones typically cost more for their owner to provide to the production process and contribute commensurately more to production. So their owner both bears a greater cost when providing them, and makes a greater contribution by doing so.

Do you think that a society with access to more advanced tools might be different than one with only simple tools?

It will typically be more productive and wealthier, thanks entirely to those who devote their resources to contributing those more advanced tools to the production process.

Is it more logical to assume everyone in the world is both confused and lying to you, of that you don’t understand what the rest of us are discussing?

<yawn> Is it more logical to assume that when I respond to your messages I am responding to YOU, or to everyone in the world...? I never said or implied that everyone in the world was confused or lying. Just socialists and capitalists.

Sometimes it’s hard to admit that you don’t know some things, but it will help you learn!

One thing I don't know is how I put up with your despicably disingenuous and deceitful behavior.

Do I? Or are you lashing out because you are having trouble with these topics?

Oh, you do, definitely.

If only you find something self evident and assume everyone else in the world is lying, maybe you need to examine your views.

I didn't say everyone else in the world was lying. Just capitalists and socialists.

It can be scary to admit that you might be wrong, but it’s something you’ll have to do a lot when you grow up, and it’s fine!

I might be wrong. There might be leprechauns at the bottom of your garden, too.

These very basic discussions about basic topics seem to be complicated enough that you are getting tired. But keep going!

I am definitely getting tired of this "discussion." Very. But that has nothing to do with the topic.

I am doing my best. I may not be perfect,

Shocker.....

but I am trying to help you.

You are aware that that is false.

You shouldn’t feel insulted because you don’t know something. Not even I know everything!

That's not why I feel insulted and you know it.

Learning is never a waste of time!

What does learning have to do with reading your posts??

And that’s okay! Once you know more you too will be confident to admit that you make mistakes sometimes!

As when I naively assumed I could get an honest discussion out of you....

I am good at socialism. And your brain turned off comment is typical of children, you’re completely normal!

It's a metaphor, and one I have found useful.

I come to this board to discuss things, and I’m trying to help you understand so we can discuss things!

I see no evidence that you are interested in discussing THIS thing.

It’s good to have convictions. But you should also be careful to understand what others are trying to say. If you can’t understand it, you should see it as an opportunity to learn, not as an insult to you!

<yawn>

Just because I know things that you don’t doesn’t mean that I’m sneering at you!

Right: you're sneering because I know things that YOU don't.

I’m trying to help you learn so we can have a discussion!

Pull the other one.

Don’t get tired yet!

Too late...

Let’s first keep concentrating on some of the basic words you don’t understand!

You mean, like you can't understand that the ordinary English word, "own" doesn't apply to services?

In general, do you think there are differences that complicated machines might make in a society? (Hint: I’ve been asking you about Ancient Egypt and the US and how slavery may have been different in each)

Of course, as explained above: in general, the more complicated the machines, the more their owner is contributing to production by providing them, the higher production is as a result of the machine owners' contributions, and as the Law of Rent implies (and even the honesty-challenged Karl Marx understood, late in life), the greater the fraction of production that landowners are legally entitled to take in return for the nothing they contribute.

[Potemkin]

No one can own labor, as it does not exist except in the moment it is being performed. Labor is human effort devoted to production. Human effort is not something that can be owned. You know this, of course, but you are disingenuously pretending that you do not know it because you are trying to deceive your readers (you are aware that you are not deceiving me).

You are deceiving yourself, TtP. Of course human labour-power can be owned. It gets bought and sold every time somebody signs a contract of employment. The fact that this labour-power will only be expended in the future is irrelevant; you can think of the labour market as a 'futures' market if you like. This is so fundamental to economics that it shouldn't even need to be stated; it should be obvious to any normal human being with a functioning brain.

[Decky]

You are deceiving yourself, TtP. Of course human labour-power can be owned. It gets bought and sold every time somebody signs a contract of employment. The fact that this labour-power will only be expended in the future is irrelevant; you can think of the labour market as a 'futures' market if you like. This is so fundamental to economics that it shouldn't even need to be stated; it should be obvious to any normal human being with a functioning brain.

Just the left then.