Forum rules unfortunately prohibit me from identifying ckaihatsu's claims for what they indisputably are. Readers should be able to figure it out, though:
No, that's just more false, absurd, and disingenuous tripe from you. There is nothing "circular" about the fact that increasing production by providing producer goods earns a return.
So larger market cap
It has nothing to do with market cap. Stop trying to change the subject every time I prove you objectively wrong -- which is always.
means larger *deals*
No, that's just another ridiculous non sequitur fallacy from you. The size of the deals is utterly irrelevant. One customer buying 100 pizzas is a bigger deal than 1000 customers each buying one, but the volume is 10x bigger for the latter business. You are just trying to prevent yourself from knowing any relevant facts -- and with, I must concede, remarkable success.
-- but where does the 'greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts' part come into play, that you're implicitly claiming, if not from the actual realtime exploitation of surplus labor value -- ?
From the increase in production the investor's contribution of producer goods causes. You just have to contrive some way to prevent yourself from knowing the fact that that increase comes from what the investor, not the worker, contributes.
It's *capitalism* that gives us this realistically *absurd* scenario,
It's not absurd, and it has nothing to do with capitalism. I have simply described a situation that could occur in any economy.
where Abby / 'old money'
No, that's just more absurd and disingenuous garbage from you with no basis in fact.
has a greater interest in *hanging on to outdated equipment*
No she doesn't. You simply made that up. It's nothing but more of your usual anti-factual, anti-rational, anti-economic Marxist bull$#!+.
Don't you understand what it means when all you can ever offer is absurd and disingenuous garbage that no one of normal intelligence over the age of nine could possibly believe?
-- and *that's* assuming it can remain competitive for market share parallel to Ben's new electric oven.
Abby can either be Ben's employee for a necessarily-exploitative wage,
There's nothing exploitative about it. You simply made that up. It's just more of your absurd, anti-economic Marxist garbage with no basis in fact.
stick with *her own* means, the older wood-fired oven,
Of course, she is free to decline the superior opportunity Ben offers. For example, if she is incredibly stupid, and believes brainless, anti-rational, anti-economic Marxist garbage, she might be able to persuade herself that doing the easier work of making pizzas rather than chopping wood and tending the fire is "exploitation." But realistically, very few people are that stupid.
or somehow entreat her husband to stop being such a capitalist within the marriage / household
You mean to stop making the household more productive and wealthier by contributing the producer goods that cause the increase in value it produces? Why would she be so stupid, anti-productive, and evil? She's not a Marxist, after all -- almost no working person ever has been.
and allow for the co-proprietorship thing (over a measly $300 oven).
Why are you pretending that the amount of Ben's investment is relevant? It couldn't matter less if the new oven cost $300, $3K, $3M or $3. It is still HIS INVESTMENT
the increase in value produced, not Abby's labor. It also couldn't matter less if Abby and Ben are co-proprietors or Abby is Ben's employee: it is still BEN
, not ABBY
who has CAUSED
the increase in production by providing the new oven, and it is therefore nothing but a stupid, absurd, and dishonest anti-economic Marxist anti-concept to call the additional value produced by Ben's contribution surplus "labor" value.
Your 'boilerplate' treatment here is insufficient,
No. The facts I identified prove me objectively right and you objectively wrong.
since it's clear that Ben would be *ripping Abby off* if they couldn't find business terms that were more equitable to each other's respective material positions.
No it isn't. What's really clear is that you are just makin' absurd and disingenuous Marxist $#!+ up again. How could Ben possibly be "ripping Abby off" when nothing he has done has made her any worse off than if he had never existed?
It's even murky *ethical* terrain, arguably,
No, it most certainly is not. You are just trying to pretend that good is evil and evil good.
since Abby could validly readily question why there isn't a more *qualitative* conversation going on, instead of the quick *bottom-lining* / fait-accompli -- with a rush to maintain and develop *existing* capital structures irrespective of any and all *other* directions of investment strategy.
No, she most certainly could not. Abby could only question Ben's offer of access to better economic opportunity that she would not otherwise have had if she was a stupid, evil, lying piece of Marxist $#!+.
It wasn't too long. I am very concise -- unlike people who post lengthy quotations of absurd and disingenuous Marxist gibberish.
Are Abby and Ben aiming to maximize *individual* returns on investment, or *joint* returns on investment?
Both, because unlike stupid, evil, lying pieces of Marxist $#!+, they know there is no conflict between them.
Hypothetically, and myopically.
No. Factually, and indisputably.
Again, all *hypothetical* -- was Abby even *asked* about any of this?
It's not hypothetical. It's the actual history of how investors increase production. And whether Abby was asked or not is completely irrelevant to the fact that it is Ben's investment that has increased pizza production, not the magical appearance some "surplus" in the value of Abby's labor. If Abby doesn't want to produce more pizzas, Ben can find someone who is not a stupid, evil, lying sack of Marxist $#!+ to do her job.
'Wages' here actually means 'dividends' *or* 'wages', depending on whether Abby is cut-in or not on the 'co-proprietorship' legal entity.
No, it means what she is paid for her labor. If she is a co-owner, then that is a different income stream.
And, likewise, the *land* / real estate / 'rentier capital' would not be available if *it* had not been worked-on, by labor, to *commodify* it, to confer *use value*, for actual usability and exchangeability.
No, that is just the same bald, absurd falsehood you have been repeating ad nauseam. Everyone reading this, including you, knows that raw land, which indisputably existed before any human being, WAS
already available for use, and has to already BE
it can be worked on by labor, and it is precisely the greater usefulness of specific PARCELS
land that MAKE
them more suitable to be worked on than others that are less useful. None of this is disputable. You just have to deny
it because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.
You're *so close*
Wish I could say the same...
-- if you can just alter your perception / perspective of this issue, to *generalize* from the localist *landowner*, to *all* landowner-like owners of rentier capital (all assets and resources, all necessarily non-commodity-productive), then you'd see that they're all identical *in function*.
No I could not, because they are indisputably not, as I have proved to you many times. Natural resources were by definition
already available for use with no help from their owners or any previous owner. Producer goods were not, because they had to be brought into existence by their initial owners and provided to the production process by their current owners. Every time you deny that self-evident and indisputable fact of objective physical reality, you only prove that your false and evil Marxist beliefs are more important to you than liberty, justice, the condition and prosperity of the working class, or the truth.
Land 'hosts' public infrastructure and government services.
And the private owners of nearby land are privileged to charge everyone else for permission to access them.
'Real estate' -- developed land -- hosts *private* infrastructure and *commercial* services.
No, your claims are objectively false. Real estate includes raw, undeveloped land; and its differing physical qualities and access to services, infrastructure, opportunities and amenities determine its value and what kind of labor and investment is most appropriately devoted to developing it.
Communal laundromats 'host' clothes-cleaning infrastructure and government *provisioning* over such laundromat machines.
And the machines are provided by government, which makes the service useful and worth paying for.
*Commercial* laundromats host clothes-cleaning infrastructure and 'fee-for-service', *for-profit* convenience, from *private ownership* of those machines.
Because the private providers of the machines are the ones who make the service useful and worth paying for.
AI 'hosts' neural networks, trained or untrained, ready for limitless usage with given energy / electricity inputs.
The AI neural network itself could be 'public' / governmental, as at a college or university, or it could be *private*, as at a portal website, by subscription fee.
And in either case, the usefulness of the hardware and software are provided by the investment that caused them to exist, not the "surplus value" of some wage worker who tightened a screw on it.
Do these examples make the reality any *clearer* for you, TTP -- ?I
have made the reality crystal
clear to you
and everyone else reading this. I am not the one who can't find a willingness to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, here. You are.
Endless laborless commodities / products / services *spring forth* from all of these *rentier*-type capital investments, and *yes*, including your favorite-example of 'land' / real estate, too.
No they don't.
Note that while end-user / customer *use-value* is being provided by all the examples here, actual *commodities* *aren't*, strictly speaking, since commodity-production necessarily requires *wage labor* -- otherwise there's no actual *circulation* / economic social-organization taking place, as through publicly-available pooled joint-stock equity investments, for the production of commodities (goods and services).
That is absurd Marxist gibberish with no relation to economic reality.
The closed-loop of fee-for-service -- like clean clothes from a laundromat machine -- means that *deflation* (corraled valuations of separate, distinct assets and resources) is necessarily underway, with *increasing* asset valuations of the (laundromat) business as revenue streams in over time, all without the expense of labor costs.
That is absurd Marxist gibberish with no relation to economic reality. The machines will depreciate over time as they wear out, and labor is required to maintain them.
Almost everything you say on this subject is just objectively false.
So -- in what other aspect of daily real life would we ever find a pool of 'x' value that simply *gains* in monetary value (minus depreciation) *all by itself*, from the incoming revenue stream, and without any continuous ongoing labor-value inputs -- ?
Land, which does not depreciate but appreciates, and requires no labor input from its owner to make him rich.
The rentier-asset revenue stream is *not* from the machine producing discrete *commodities* -- because that would require *labor*, and labor-hour-wage-based *continuous valuations*, for commodity-production *new exchange values*.
No new exchange values are produced by *rentier* capital (land, etc.), though, because the end-user / customer fee for service has to be *pre-existing* value in the economy, as with rent from either equity capital, or from the worker.
No, that's false, and only proves you don't understand any economics.
Rentier, necessarily-non-commodity-productive assets and resources only *drain* the economy of value and circulation -- such rentier assets are *deflationary sinkholes* in the overall economy.
Gibberish with no discernible relation to fact.
Who paid the mortgage for the land / real estate that the pizzeria sits on, and who holds the *title* to that real estate -- ?
How could that possibly be relevant to the fact that Ben's contribution of the new oven, not any magical "surplus" in the value of Abby's labor, greatly increased the pizzeria's production of value?
It's *another* form of rentier capital, land, which was definitely *not* in its raw, natural state when the pizzeria building was plopped down onto the site.
Sure it was. The previous improvements were removed, and then the site sat vacant and overgrown for 30 years before the pizzeria owners provided the building.
Therefore the 'land' that the building sits on first required *capital investment*, for *landscaping*, as with any other rentier-capital asset or resource.
No it didn't. The pizzeria owners acquired it in its unimproved state. You are just repeating the same bald falsehood you have already seen proved false many times.
And, who does the labor to make the actual pizzas?
Abby, using the equipment Ben provided, which greatly increases the value her contribution adds to.
If the output of pizzas has *tripled* due to the new electric oven, the *labor* involved in that process will be triple as well
No, I already proved that is false.
-- Abby would have a personal individual interest in the *co-proprietorship* vehicle at this point, instead of working three times as hard for the same unchanged wage rate as before.
No, she's not working three times as hard. That's just another bald fabrication on your part. She's simply spending more time making pizzas because she no longer has to chop wood and tend the fire.
No, it is an indisputable fact of objective physical reality.
-- land does *not* have to 'already be usable'.
It most certainly does. How could anyone use it to make improvements if it were not already usable, hmmmmm?
Land is *transformed* as a matter of course, to *make* it usable and saleable, like *any other* form of rentier capital like gemstones or AI neural networks.
No, you are just repeating the same bald, outright falsehood I have already proved false many times. Raw land is ALREADY
salable, and must ALREADY BE
it can be transformed. It already exists, with no help from its owner or any previous owner. Gemstones and AI networks do not. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way of identifying that fact for you so that you would find a willingness to know it.
Yes. You are just denying indisputable facts.
-- in the U.S. the government provided initial land offerings at *below market* rates, based on *favoritism*.
Much as almost all governments that have ever issued private land titles have done.
Historically, the government provided the initial offering of land to *land speculators*:
That is completely irrelevant to the FACT that raw land often changes hands for astronomical sums, proving me objectively right and you objectively wrong.
Don't you understand what it means when the facts of objective physical reality always prove you wrong?
That's not really correct
It is most certainly and indisputably correct.
-- you seem to think that land ownership confers some kind of *total social authority* within those bounds, even over government spending, the persons on that land, and all natural resources there as well.
It confers the legal entitlement to charge others full market value for permission to access
the services and infrastructure government provides, the opportunities and amenities the community provides, and the physical qualities nature provides at that location.
Your 'totality' social conception here resembles *feudalism* more than anything *modern*, with *civil rights*.
No, you made that up. I have identified the relevant indisputable facts of objective physical reality.