[thousandandfirstptoflight]

I envision a future where necessity, perhaps all necessity has been negated by science. Has anyone read Kurzweil's iews on "The Singularity"? Someday, capitalism as we know it will cease to serve its current purposes, as will government as well, most likely.

Of course, getting there will take money, and money is capital. for this reason I would support a capitalist system, although a progressive and humanitarian one.

[Bounce Widdit]

If labour power can be increased without an increase in physical labour, then is it not possible that capitalists also play a role in increasing the labour power imbued in an object?

no, because there is no labour-power imbued in an object. labour-power is a potentiality that becomes realised through labour in the object produced. however, the capitalist, through investing capital in technology can increase labour-power; this does not refute the existence surplus value, however.

If all commodities are traded according to their value, why is it that labour isn't? Is a more likely answer that you overstate the value of the physical labour that goes into a commodity and understate the other factors?

labour is not commodity, labour-power is; and labour-power IS traded according to its value. this is a central proposition in marxian economic theory

from what you have said you either have not read marx, or have severly misinterpreted him. if you deny the existence of surplus value, tell me, what on earth is profit?

a very short, straightforward exposition of marxist economics in regard to wage, labour and surplus value can be found here

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /intro.htm

[PredatorOC]

We're all intelligent enough to be able to observe what's wrong and give suggestions on how to fix it.

Having opinions is one thing. Claiming that they should be implemented on everyone else is a different matter. Which is the root of the problem here; to the uninitiated, economics is mainly a moral issue. And they are entitled to that moral position, but do we want emotions ruling over something as important as the economy? Do we want to chance our very lives on the emotional valuations of laymen? Even Einstein, while a brilliant physicist, mainly fumbles in the dark with his economic views, having no solid foundation for his theories and relying on subjective valuations about "evil" things.

I envision a future where necessity, perhaps all necessity has been negated by science. Has anyone read Kurzweil's iews on "The Singularity"? Someday, capitalism as we know it will cease to serve its current purposes, as will government as well, most likely.

Exactly what would people do in this future?

money is capital

No it's not. Money is just a medium of exchange. Which is why printing money doesn't create capital. Only savings (that is, postponing consumption) can create capital.

if you deny the existence of surplus value, tell me, what on earth is profit?

A return on capital investment. You know, that thing that stands between us and autarkic primitivism.

[Paradigm]

And they are entitled to that moral position, but do we want emotions ruling over something as important as the economy? Do we want to chance our very lives on the emotional valuations of laymen?

Economics without morality is useless. It does us no good to understand what policies will have what effect if we are morally indifferent to the outcome.

[PredatorOC]

Economics without morality is useless. It does us no good to understand what policies will have what effect if we are morally indifferent to the outcome.

You have completely misunderstood what I was saying. The crux of the matter is that morality does not fit into economics. Economics is the attempt to understand human action. When we understand that action and can deduce what repercussions particular actions will have, we can start worrying about whether it is moral or not. But doing so before results in "I consider this evil and will blindly act in hopes of correcting it". And that is what Einstein is proposing; the way of the impatient child which neither understands nor wants to understand the consequences of his immediate desires.

[grassroots1]

Economics is the attempt to understand human action. When we understand that action and can deduce what repercussions particular actions will have, we can start worrying about whether it is moral or not. But doing so before results in "I consider this evil and will blindly act in hopes of correcting it". And that is what Einstein is proposing; the way of the impatient child which neither understands nor wants to understand the consequences of his immediate desires.

Obviously the act is not blind, because people perceive a failure in the way that things have naturally developed. Therefore, they require a collective solution to the problem. When there is a crisis, no one says, 'well, let's just let it continue as is and things will get better eventually.' Psychology is an attempt to understand human action, economics is just the science of the system of exchange that humans have developed to support society. It doesn't necessarily have an ultimate form in any direction.

A person who calls Einstein an impatient child is clearly speaking from a preconditioned standpoint.

[PredatorOC]

Obviously the act is not blind

Of course it is! Einstein is advocating action based on his moral valuations of the situation! He didn't say "this is how X works and this is how we can implement Y", he said "X is evil, I want Y".

It doesn't necessarily have an ultimate form in any direction.

Of course it does; the free market. Free exchange, free association and property rights are not choices. Some king in the past didn't just throw a switch and make society work based on free exchange. And conversely, you don't just flip a few switches to turn them off. The free market will always be there and it will strive towards the most efficient solution. So if you want to get rid of it, you either have to spend considerably amounts of resources into suppressing it, like the Soviets did (but even they failed as black markets provided what the Soviet system couldn't). Or you create a more efficient system than free exchange and property rights. But to do the latter, you need to look at the situation objectively, and you can't do that through morality.

A person who calls Einstein an impatient child is clearly speaking from a preconditioned standpoint.

First of, I didn't call Einstein anything, only his opinions on this subject. Secondly, did you just seriously appeal to an authority that isn't even a fucking authority on the subject? Do you also read physics books written by economists? Or listen to chemistry lectures by hairdressers? Grow a goddamn brain!

[Noelnada]

The free market will always be there and it will strive towards the most efficient solution

Most efficient markets are regulated as far as i know. So talking about free-market isn't precisely exact.

Of course it is! Einstein is advocating action based on his moral valuations of the situation! He didn't say "this is how X works and this is how we can implement Y", he said "X is evil, I want Y".

I concur. But morale values may be a source of inspiration and motivation to look after the most efficient solutions.

But to do the latter, you need to look at the situation objectively, and you can't do that through morality.

Yes i suppose you can't just issue a constitutional law that proclaim liberty, equality, fraternity and communism then hope that with enough policemen and soldiers, these principles will be respected...

[PredatorOC]

Most efficient markets are regulated as far as i know. So talking about free-market isn't precisely exact.

So why do regulations require coercion? If they are so efficient, why wouldn't people adopt them voluntarily? Even Marxism claims communism to be more efficient than capitalism and that it would be adopted voluntarily (or at least that is my limited understanding of the subject).

[Noelnada]

So why do regulations require coercion? If they are so efficient, why wouldn't people adopt them voluntarily?

Some individual economic agents may prefer to violate rules to maximize their individual profits, even though these rules are more efficient for the community as a whole. This is actually more a political question than an economic one. The economist may suggest what regulations are the less counter-productive, but in the end, it is to the politicians to choose which one to implement.

This is the question of balance between individual - collectivity. You can't just expect individuals to integrate all the rules set for them during their primary and secondary education, you also have to make sure that they actually respect these rules once this education is finished. These rules created for the benefits of the individual and of the collectivity.

[PredatorOC]

Some individual economic agents may prefer to violate rules to maximize their individual profits, even though these rules are more efficient for the community as a whole.

You don't understand the context. For example, why doesn't the division of labour require government enforcement? Sure, some people may choose to be completely autarkic, but the vast majority of people choose to specialize in certain labour. Or why are property rights so ingrained in our society and why do most people respect them without government enforcement? Both of these are beneficial to individuals and society as a whole. So if government regulations are truly so efficient, why aren't they adopted willingly? Why do you need a 3rd party to enforce rules between two parties, neither of which may agree to the rules, if those rules are so efficient?

[Noelnada]

You don't understand the context.

No, i actually don't understand your point.

why doesn't the division of labour require government enforcement?

Why would the division of labour require government enforcement ?

why are property rights so ingrained in our society and why do most people respect them without government enforcement? Both of these are beneficial to individuals and society as a whole.

I don't think that property rights would be respected without coercion or government enforcement. All i can see is that if you take away the police or gunmen, there is looting and pillages.

So if government regulations are truly so efficient, why aren't they adopted willingly?

Government regulations are not always truly efficient, and the individuals don't always recognize the benefits of a truly efficient regulation for the whole collectivity. Actually, the proportion is hard to assess, but there is a proportion of individuals who just don't care about the collectivity and simply want individual benefits whatever the cost to the collectivity.

There are also socio-cultural, socio-historical, psycho-historical factors to take into account. But i have to study for an exam tomorrow.

[PredatorOC]

Why would the division of labour require government enforcement ?

Precisely.

I don't think that property rights would be respected without coercion or government enforcement. All i can see is that if you take away the police or gunmen, there is looting and pillages.

Of course there will be theft and fraud. But for the most part, those are ancillary phenomenons. But can you explain why property rights are not routinely broken whenever a government official isn't around enforcing property rights? Why can a shopkeeper place merchandise on display on the street and people don't leisurely steal the merchandise as they walk by, even when the chance of getting caught is non-existent?

individuals don't always recognize the benefits of a truly efficient regulation for the whole collectivity

What collective? How can rules, that individuals view as harmful to them, result in benefits for everyone? Any collective is just a collection of individuals. And by any rational deduction, what is good for individuals is good for the collective. If something is harmful on the individual level, it doesn't magically transform into a benefit in the hands of the government.

[grassroots1]

What collective? How can rules, that individuals view as harmful to them, result in benefits for everyone?

Why does an individual necessarily view that regulation as harmful? I certainly don't view many regulations as harmful.