ckaihatsu wrote:Cut the boilerplate --
If I repeat myself, it is because you repeat your errors.
you acknowledge only *land* / real estate
No, you are again just refusing to know the fact that land and fixed improvements thereto are entirely different, as the land was already there anyway, while the improvements had to be created by labor. You prove that you just blankly refuse to know that fact every time you try to conflate land with real estate. Which you always do.
as being rentier capital,
The term "rentier capital" is a disingenuous attempt to pretend that property in privilege is the same as property in the fruits of one's labor.
when rentier capital *does* behave consistently as the drain you describe, but for *all* 'assets' and 'resources' that are *non-productive* of commodities, and which legally collect interest and rent payments from both labor and capital, from the *pre-existing* economy, without any new production / new values taking place.
That is merely your attempt to prevent yourself from knowing the fact that a prior contribution to relief of scarcity earns a commensurate return just as much as a current one. It could not matter in the least that the contribution was made last year or last century rather than last night.
I'll invite you to comment on the following, since it may be relevant here:
labor and capital, side-by-side
It's the same old garbage.
You're simply glorifying the *manager's* executive-type role, in relation to capital,
No, I am stating the fact
that the producer
is the person whose decisions and initiative cause
the product to exist rather than not exist. In that contractual role, the producer pays the owner of producer goods for use of their contribution, the landowner for permission to use the locational advantages that government, the community and nature contributed, and the workers for their contributions of labor. The difference, of course, which you have to somehow prevent yourself from knowing, is that the producer goods would not have been available without their owner contributing them, and the labor would not have been available without the worker putting in the effort; but the land
would have been available just the same if the landowner had never existed. Everything you say, do, and believe is to prevent yourself from knowing that fact.
when what's more pertinent is that it's the *capital* (amount) that's providing the main impetus behind any given commercial activity.
No. That is just false, and you are trying to prevent yourself from knowing the fact that "commercial activity" can be production, speculation, or rent seeking. Marxists are very practiced at preventing themselves from knowing the relevant facts, to the point where they now seem able to prevent themselves from knowing anything relevant at all.
Your entire politics is simply that the choiciest real estate is already gone / scarfed-up, and that makes land costs higher for the investor class.
No, that is just another absurd and disingenuous mischaracterization of my clearly stated views on your part.
You'd like a capitalist 'equity heaven' wherein all necessary administrative overhead, for the perfectly-equitable leasing of land to the public, is perfectly servile, neutral, and without cost.
No, you simply made that up to prevent yourself from knowing the relevant facts. It has no relation to anything I have said.
You're misrepresenting basic information. Here:
No, I have identified the relevant facts, and your source does not contradict them. It is not even relevant to them.
My prior point remains, that *any* political camp would logically and logistically want the *benefits* of centralization and hierarchy -- a standing bureaucracy, for whatever the given political goals happen to be.
Another miracle of irrelevancy.
Okay, in the interests of clarity, please differentiate between the Fed, and an 'independent mint'.
The Fed tries to get private commercial banks to issue the right amount of money by lending. The independent Mint does it itself by issuing sufficient debt- and interest-free fiat money to the Treasury to be spent into circulation to keep prices stable.
Do you mean *this* -- ?
Okay, you're saying that the market measures the day-by-day *fluctuations* in the value of a commodity, due to the balance between the forces of supply and demand.
It measures the value of everything that trades in the market -- and is the only thing that can.
Now -- what about the *costs of production*.
They constrain what is produced to the things a producer thinks he can sell for more than that.
If I use available funds to manufacture something, I'm going to be looking for pricing -- irrespective of subsequent supply-and-demand pricing fluctuations -- that gives me a *return* on my money.
You are welcome to try -- and everyone is welcome to laugh at you, because you can't force
them to pay you more than they think your product is worth.
This is my standing critique of capitalist 'money' / exchange-values, that it's having to do *triple duty*, which is impossible -- here's recently from another thread:
It's not impossible. Use is based on utility, which equates to demand. Construction cost is a cap on supply at the margin. It all comes down to supply and demand.
Well, *yeah*, of course -- that's *capitalism*, and that's not saying much.
No, production is always inherently private: it is performed by the particular people involved, no one else.
The diagram shows that society has to pony-up, in one way or another, those fundamental social components that enable *production*, and modern society and 'civilization' (in the best possible sense of the term).
No it doesn't. Society can
provide physical and social infrastructure that enables
greater production; but that, too, is done privately, by paying specific individual government employees and contractors to do it.