Truth To Power wrote:
<stupid, irrelevant garbage snipped>
ckaihatsu wrote:
TTP, as soon as the new owner of the raw land
Truth To Power wrote:
So you agree that the raw land had to already be real estate and have exchange value before any labor was applied to it, and all your claims to the contrary were bald falsehoods contrived to preserve your false and evil beliefs. Good. About time.
No....
ckaihatsu wrote:
*steps foot* onto the raw land there will most likely be *some* portion of labor committed -- maybe a shed added, or a patch mowed free of vegetation, etc.
Truth To Power wrote:
Maybe there will, maybe there won't. The fact remains that the raw land is real estate and has value without any labor being applied to it.
No, raw land really *isn't* real estate, because only labor-developed *real estate* can host services, infrastructure, and community.
ckaihatsu wrote:
*That* counts as 'internal labor', or 'abstract labor' (Marx)
Truth To Power wrote:
The moment you attribute any statement to Marx, you are effectively stipulating that it is a stupid, evil lie.
ckaihatsu wrote:
-- and then it's no longer 'raw land' anymore, but real *real estate* at that point.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, you're just backsliding again. It indisputably had to have already been real estate and had value before it could have been bought by its new owner. You are merely trying to contrive some means to avoid knowing that fact because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.
(See the previous segment.)
ckaihatsu wrote:
Pre-*pricing*, land for-millions-of-years was not *private property*.
Truth To Power wrote:
But it was already usable and useful before any labor was applied to it, proving me objectively right and you objectively wrong, as always. Its combination of utility and scarcity guaranteed it had value, although no one was privileged to pocket it. Which proves the Labor Theory of Value and Marxism are objectively false.
There was no *commodity production* for all of that pre-historic time, so no '[exchange] value' in the sense of the *currency* that you're indicating.
ckaihatsu wrote:
If *anything* trades for astronomical sums it means that there's massive *price speculation* involved, over its exchange-value bid-up price *on paper*.
Truth To Power wrote:
No it doesn't. That is nothing but another bald fabrication on your part. If someone pays an astronomical price for something, it's because it has that much value, proving me objectively right and you and Marxism objectively wrong.
No, you're getting too caught-up in 'supply-and-demand'-type pricing, which doesn't indicate *production costs* at all.
If raw land is so overpriced, as you're indicating, the high price necessarily doesn't reflect the (labor) cost of *producing* the raw land into real-estate, because the raw land *hasn't* been developed into real estate, by definition -- it's *raw*.
So since raw land is *undeveloped* and *not* developed real estate, one has to ask why such non-productive raw land is *valued* so highly -- could it be *pure speculation* without any underlying productive process that pays wages -- ?
Why would you just *accept* this price speculation activity over raw land, and tout it as 'normal', when your line also *implicates* this kind of ownership as being too *separatist*, economically. ('Depriving other people', etc.)
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
You *should* be *objecting* to this, instead of *touting* it,
Truth To Power wrote:
I'm not "touting" it. I'm just stating the fact that it proves me objectively right and you and Marxism objectively wrong.
ckaihatsu wrote:
because such bidding wars
Truth To Power wrote:
There's no "bidding war." You made that up. The value of raw land is just how much prospective users think the opportunity it represents is worth before any labor is expended on it.
ckaihatsu wrote:
have the effect of making the parcel *too expensive* for most people's reach, pricing them out of its *use value* / utility -- which happens to be the main argument / premise of your geoist politics:
Truth To Power wrote:
No it isn't. That is just another bald fabrication on your part. When raw land trades for astronomical sums, proving you, the Labor Theory of Value and Marxism all objectively wrong, it indicates the opportunity is so valuable that most people can't utilize it effectively, and should not be depriving others of it because they can't afford to make just compensation to the community.
ckaihatsu wrote:
That's B.S.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, it is an indisputable fact of objective physical reality that you have to find some way of not knowing so that you can preserve your false and evil beliefs.
ckaihatsu wrote:
since any two initially similar parcels of land will differentiate themselves in due time according to what kind of *real estate* they're turned into, through investment in *labor*, for transforming the initially undeveloped plots of land, respectively.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, that's just more of your usual false, disingenuous and absurd Marxist excrement. Two similar parcels may or may not be improved in different ways to capitalize on the value they have before any labor is applied, and which proves your beliefs are false and evil.
Two similar (adjacent) parcels have *identical* exchange-value valuations, which is the entire *premise* of the scenario -- wage-labor applied differently will then produce different *valuations* in the respective parcels afterward.
Truth To Power wrote:
All you can ever do is deny self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality. It's nothing but evil, despicable, nauseating filth, and you never offer anything else.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Are you *hearing* yourself speak -- ?
Truth To Power wrote:
Yes, I notice that I am identifying indisputable facts, and you are denying them because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.
ckaihatsu wrote:
'Public services', 'government infrastructure', 'community opportunities and amenities' *all* imply *labor* expended, in order to *provide* service, buildings, and institutional-type organizations.
Truth To Power wrote:
Yes, labor expended on nearby parcels, not on the raw land from which those advantages can be accessed, and whose exchange value proves Marxism is false and evil. And even in the total absence of such labor, the physical qualities nature provides at that location STILL give the raw land value, proving your beliefs are false and evil.
ckaihatsu wrote:
You can't really expect me to believe that services, infrastructure, and community are all going to exist on *raw land*, can you -- ?
Truth To Power wrote:
They can be ACCESSED FROM raw land, as you know very well, which gives the raw land greater value than its natural qualities alone, and again proves your beliefs are false and evil.
You're twisting and turning now, to try to posit some kind of 'reach over' from undeveloped raw land, to actual *real estate* that's been labor-developed, for normal social usage.
ckaihatsu wrote:
*Of course* basic labor will be used to *develop* the raw land so that such civic activities can take place in that location.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, that is just another disingenuous evasion from you. The raw land FROM WHICH such advantages can be accessed gets value from labor expended elsewhere, not on that location, proving you wrong, your objections fallacious and disingenuous, and your beliefs false and evil. You can offer nothing but disingenuous, evil, despicable, disgusting filth.
(See the previous segment.)
ckaihatsu wrote:
It proves that *empirical*, *objective reality* is correct.
Truth To Power wrote:
And that Marxism, and your beliefs, are false and evil excrement.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, but that's as a *saleable commodity*.
Truth To Power wrote:
Which proves you wrong and your beliefs false and evil.
ckaihatsu wrote:
In the laundromat there *is no* buying-and-selling of the machines themselves --
Truth To Power wrote:
What an absurd load of filth. How do you incorrectly imagine the machines got there, hmmmmm?
There's a distinction between *external* (market for machines), and *internal* (machines in laundromats providing automated rentier-type service to customers).
ckaihatsu wrote:
they're *rentier capital* assets,
Truth To Power wrote:
No, that's just more stupid, disingenuous filth from you, as they provide access to opportunity that would not otherwise have been available. Assets that yield rent do not.
Laundromat washing and drying machines *are* collecting rent, like *any other* rentier-type asset or resource, like land / real estate, or whatever else.
ckaihatsu wrote:
providing automated services with only individual guesswork and industry groupthink used over pricing practices, which is hardly the 'invisible hand' of the 'free market' mechanism at work.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, that's more just false and stupid garbage from you with no basis in fact. The people who actually provide those machines measure the market and price their services accordingly. You just don't know anything about business or production. Or economics.
I'm saying that it's *onerous* for the initial investment of rentier capital to have to account for its *own* risk, and also for demographic *market* risk -- it's a *double hurdle*, especially if you think that customers would be proactively *shopping around* for convenient, *local* laundromats. It's more like local *monopolies* (balkanized fiefdoms for laundry), than effortless comparison-shopping over dozens of laundromats for the consumer / end-user who needs clean clothes for their profession.
--
Truth To Power wrote:
No, that's just more absurd garbage from you. As a customer, the cost of the machine is completely irrelevant to you. It doesn't matter if the owner bought it for $1M, won it in a poker game, or found it in his grandmother's attic, because the price of the service is determined by supply and demand, not production cost. That is the fact that proves the Labor Theory of Value is objectively false.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Again you're erroneously conflating the *asset value* (of the washing machine), with the asset's *service pricing*, or price to the customer for clean clothes.
Truth To Power wrote:
No I'm not. You are just makin' $#!+ up again. I am stating the fact that the two have nothing to do with each other.
That's *my* point, actually -- that you shouldn't *conflate* the two.
It's the *same washing machine*, but it's being valuated in *two different ways*, as for *any* (rentier) asset or resource. What does the acquisition 'value' (price) of an asset have to do with its revenue-collecting 'value', or rent-collecting 'durability' -- ?
Obviously the valuation here is a *gloss-over*, because [2] supply-and-demand service pricing to the end-user has *nothing* to do with the acquisition cost of the source asset, as you're clearly stating.
What would a professional *appraisal* of the laundry-machine asset *be*, before, and then *after* acquisition, and service -- ? If there's steady sales wouldn't the asset then be considered 'more valuable' compared to its initial *cost* value, and then how-the-hell did it suddenly *increase* in valuation, all without undergoing any positive physical *changes* within that service period -- ?
ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, there's an overall larger 'market' for the laundering of clothes generally, but that varying market pricing in an area, at various locations, doesn't necessarily reflect a real-time-type market-pricing 'arena' over that same 'clothes cleaning' service pricing.
Truth To Power wrote:
Yes, of course it does.
ckaihatsu wrote:
In other words supply-and-demand doesn't really *apply* when the various respective *proprietors* of the laundromats are each doing their respective pricing according to their individual *investment capital* in their respective machines.
Truth To Power wrote:
But in fact they aren't. That is where you and Marx are objectively wrong. It couldn't matter less how much they spent on the machines. People will only pay the going rate. That proves your beliefs, and Marxism, are false and anti-economic.
ckaihatsu wrote:
They're looking for *returns*, a localized, circumscribed economic concern which is quite *removed* from the customer's perspective of 'finding competitive pricing in the area', as through the expected 'supply-and-demand' 'arena' of that area.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, that is just more absurd, anti-economic Marxist tripe from you. The proprietor of the laundromat knows he has to provide the service at a competitive price, and it is up to him to make it profitable.
ckaihatsu wrote:
There's no *actual* competitive 'pricing arena' in the laundromat-area when there are no actual *commodities* being produced, for actual dynamic market competition over market share.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, that's just more of your stupid, anti-economic Marxist filth contrary to fact. It couldn't matter less if there is any physical commodity being produced. Marx just made up stupid $#!+ unrelated to economic fact, and you now have to refuse to know all facts in order to preserve your Marxist religious faith.
What I'm saying is that rentier-type assets and resources tend to be *locally geographically constrained*, so that they're *not portable* -- meaning that there really *isn't* any 'free-market' commercial environment going on, due to the physical constraints of local geography and the customer's own transaction costs -- transportation -- for *traversing* that physical geographic space, for any conceivable comparison-shopping over competitive laundry services.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Another way of putting it is that everyone is more-or-less *hostage* to the existing layout of laundry-service-providers, who are each *balkanized* from any conceivable 'consumer laundry market' *overall*, in the area.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, that's just more of your stupid, anti-economic Marxist filth contrary to fact. The laundromat proprietor responds to the market or he goes broke.
(See the previous segment.)
ckaihatsu wrote:
This can be generalized to *all* rentier-type assets and resources -- *all* such non-commodity-productive assets and resources are *feudal*-like, and quite *separate* from each other regarding any kind of conceivable dynamic 'economy' among them.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, that's just more of your stupid, anti-economic Marxist filth contrary to fact. Producer goods are not rentier assets because they provide productive advantages that would not otherwise have been available.
Producer goods / means-of-mass-industrial-production / equity capital, are not rentier assets because they provide *commodity production*, using wage labor, unlike rentier assets.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Uniqueness wins out, but makes for *very poor* economics, meaning real-world fulfillment of the everyday expectation for *dynamic*, competitive pricing over any given consumer requirement.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, that's just more of your stupid, anti-economic Marxist filth contrary to fact.
ckaihatsu wrote:
(Note *real estate* bubbles, for example, which are the prevailing of your cherished *supply-and-demand* dynamic, over the initial *cost-of-production* valuation, capital + labor, for pricing.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, that's just more of your stupid, anti-economic Marxist filth contrary to fact. There is no initial cost of production for land; it is provided by nature at no cost. It has value without labor or any other cost, proving you and Marx wrong. Expenditures on capital and labor have no effect on price, which is determined by supply and demand.
The costs of production tend to *carry through* to initial (and even sustained) market pricing of the commodity.
Market pricing of raw land is a *social convention* that lends itself to *market speculation* since there's no commodity-productive asset *underneath*.
Real estate land parcel pricing, as for sale for equity-capital development, will be initially determined by its *production cost* -- just as for *any other* commodity, like those that roll off the assembly line.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Consumer *proportion of income* also takes a hit, meaning that the going pricing is *too expensive* for the total use- / utility value provided to the end-user / consumer from the real estate rentier asset.)
Truth To Power wrote:
Producer goods like laundromat machines are not rentier assets
Laundromat machines *are* rentier assets because they don't effect *commodity production* -- they're necessarily, by-definition, *inputs* into the commodity-production process, meaning clean-clothes, food, transportation, etc., for workers to *get* to the workplace, to produce commodities for a wage.
Truth To Power wrote:
because they provide access to opportunity that would not otherwise have been available.
The washing or drying machine, though, is not really providing 'access to opportunity', because there's zero chance for returns on any conceivable *equity capital*.
The 'opportunity' isn't a *business* one, as you're implying, but rather it's simply a purchased automated service *input* to the customer's life and personal responsibilities of being employed.
Truth To Power wrote:
Fixed real estate improvements likewise. It is only the land that is a rentier asset because it would otherwise have been available. That is what distinguishes rent from the return to productive investment.
ckaihatsu wrote:
'Improvements', then, can be *either* equity capital, or rentier capital.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, because they would not otherwise have been available.
Again you're conflating *business* with *customer purchases* -- consumers are not buying 'opportunities' as much as they're having to spend money as overhead for the sake of tangible *job* opportunities, meaning the sustained costs of *finding employment*, and then of *being employed*.
ckaihatsu wrote:
It's actually an *argument*, not an inquiry
Truth To Power wrote:
No it's not. It's just absurd, disingenuous, anti-economic Marxist tripe intended to help you avoid knowing the facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil.
ckaihatsu wrote:
-- I'm saying that the material-item's exchange-value *depreciation* over time isn't intentionally matched to the item's own physical *degradation* / obsolescence.
Truth To Power wrote:
Intention has nothing to do with it. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.
(See the prior segment about how an inert object / rentier asset finds its value to spontaneously *change* over time without any corresponding change in its *physical composition*.)
ckaihatsu wrote:
Since the price and the quality-of-service *aren't* intentionally matched / indexed, it's clear that there's no actual *commodity* conferred -- the pricing is *ad-hoc*.
Truth To Power wrote:
That's what I told you at the outset: the investment in producer goods does not "confer" value on or pass value through to the product any more than the expenditure on labor. Price -- which reflects value -- is determined by supply and demand. THAT'S ALL.
It *does* though -- you're actually describing *rentier* assets and resources here, *not* producer-goods, or the means of mass industrial production / factories / workplaces.
material-economic exploitation
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're saying 'supply-and-demand', but you haven't addressed the point about this that I've raised previously, about money having to do a physically-impossible *triple-duty* of valuating these three *different* economic components: [1] manufacture, [2] supply-and-demand, and [3] the consumer's own subjective use-value, or 'utility'.
viewtopic.php?p=15253101#p15253101
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
With *commodity* production all of the fuss is over dynamic *per-item* commodity pricing, and ongoing market-share from it, etc. With *rentier*-type assets and resources the point is to *squeeze out* as much value as possible over time, for a better-return-on-the-unique-one-off-investment.
Truth To Power wrote:
No. In both cases, the owner simply charges what the market will bear, which is determined by supply and demand. The difference between rent collection privileges and producer goods is that the owner of the former is charging for what would otherwise have been available anyway.
ckaihatsu wrote:
(See the previous segment.)
Truth To Power wrote:
Where I demolished you again, as always.
ckaihatsu wrote:
See the previous segment.
Truth To Power wrote:
Demolished.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Also, you're resorting to a *technocratic* type of argument (of a determining elite of technical specialists) -- that's *statism* / plutocracy.
Truth To Power wrote:
No, I'm simply identifying the fact that although Marxists like you don't know anything about economics, business, or production, other people do.
*Or*:
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're saying 'supply-and-demand', but you haven't addressed the point about this that I've raised previously, about money having to do a physically-impossible *triple-duty* of valuating these three *different* economic components: [1] manufacture, [2] supply-and-demand, and [3] the consumer's own subjective use-value, or 'utility'.
viewtopic.php?p=15253101#p15253101
Truth To Power wrote:
No. There is nothing impossible about the medium of exchange serving also as unit of account and measure of value.
My whole *thesis* here, TTP, is that the idea of there being *one* value / valuation, *per product*, is strictly *impossible* -- because any given product is found to pass through *three* different-private-interest valuations, [1] cost of production, [2] market fluctuations, and [3] the consumer's *own* proportion of income (as for spending on rent).
It's a *fiction* that the capitalist-system valuation of 'price' can realistically *accommodate* those three disparate interests at once. Merely providing a *number* / valuation doesn't really address this empirical situation of objectively needing to balance-out among those three private parties, [1] equity capital, [2] financial speculation, and [3] the end-user, or consumer.
Moral difficulties
A single monetary value also denies the multiplicity of values which could be attributed to nature — non-monetary systems of cultural and social importance.[3]: 1228, 1232 The environment can express relations between generations as a sort of heritage. Livelihood, territorial rights and "sacredness" poorly translate into prices, and dividing a communal-social value — a forest, for instance — into private property rights can undermine the relations and identity of a community.[41]
Neoliberal policies have been implicated in greatly altered patterns of access and use. Markets generally deal poorly with issues of procedural fairness and equitable distribution, and critics see commodification as producing greater levels of inequality in power and participation while reinforcing existing vulnerabilities.[42][3]: 1232 Ecosystem benefits might be considered "normative public goods"[43] — even when commodified, there is a sense that individuals ought to not be excluded from access. When water privatization prices people out, for instance, a sense of use rights inspires protest.[1]: 128-9 While neoliberal approaches are often presented as neutral or objective, they disguise highly political approaches to resources and the interests and power of certain actors.[44]
Problematic consequences
Through commodification, natural entities and services become vehicles for the realization of profit,[45] subject to the pressures of the market where efficiency overrides other concerns.[46] With climate commodities, the profit motive incentivizes buyers and sellers to ignore the steady erosion of the climate mitigation goal.[47] Market exchange is "reason-blind,"[48] but without rational assessment of different strategies and the ecological importance of particular natural entities, commodification cannot effectively deliver on conservation.[49]
Harvey thus declares that there is something "inherently anti-ecological" about capitalist commodification.[50]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodification_of_nature
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
No contention, but here you're implicitly acknowledging that:
Truth To Power wrote:
[AXIOM #230202 -- Land needs-to-be-produced (to turn it into the real estate commodity).]
Truth To Power wrote:
No, I am stating the indisputable facts that raw land CANNOT be produced; it is ALREADY real estate before any labor is expended on it; and its unimproved value PROVES you and Marxism are objectively wrong.
Are you a *conservationist* -- is that why you have such a profound sense of *protection* for 'raw land' -- ?
Again, you're missing the distinction between *undeveloped*, raw land, and *developed* land, also called 'real estate'.
Your line maintains that *government* is valuating initial, raw land by *diktat* -- instead of through *market* dynamics, presumably, for legal proprietary access -- but then the question remains: How would *you* resolve this empirical function of necessarily-monolithic government administration, over all land parcels, by unique geography, when all land parcels are currently in *private* hands with no obligation to sell.