Question about surplus value - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15263655
ckaihatsu wrote:
'Produce' -- is that white-collar, pink-collar, and/or blue-collar labor -- ?



Truth To Power wrote:
It could be any combination thereof, because the fact -- which you are trying so hard to evade -- is that at bottom it's the entrepreneur's labor of arranging for all the production factors to be applied to the production process, thus causing the product to exist. By causing the product to exist, he obtains rightful property in it without abrogating anyone else's rights.



Does *this* about cover it -- ?



What Is Cost Synergy?

Cost synergy is the savings in operating costs expected after the merger of two companies. Cost synergies are cost reductions due to the increased efficiencies in the combined company. Cost synergy is one of three major synergy types, with the other two being revenue and financial synergies.



https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/costsynergy.asp



However:



[F]or capitalism to generate greater profits than the home market can yield, the merging of banks and industrial cartels produces finance capitalism, and the exportation and investment of capital to countries with undeveloped and underdeveloped economies. In turn, that financial behaviour divides the world among monopolist business companies. In colonizing undeveloped countries, business and government will engage in geopolitical conflict over the exploitation of labour of most of the population of the world. Therefore, imperialism is the highest (advanced) stage of capitalism, requiring monopolies to exploit labour and natural resources, and the exportation of finance capital, rather than manufactured goods, to sustain colonialism, which is an integral function of imperialism.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperiali ... Capitalism



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
('Trade' implies no-new-value-created /



Truth To Power wrote:
No it doesn't. That's just another bald falsehood from you.



*Or*:



In economics and related disciplines, a transaction cost is a cost in making any economic trade when participating in a market.[1] Oliver E. Williamson defines transaction costs as the costs of running an economic system of companies, and unlike production costs, decision-makers determine strategies of companies by measuring transaction costs and production costs. Transaction costs are the total costs of making a transaction, including the cost of planning, deciding, changing plans, resolving disputes, and after-sales.[2] Therefore, the transaction cost is one of the most significant factors in business operation and management.[3]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_cost



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
only-fees-and-costs / 'transaction costs',



Truth To Power wrote:
That is nothing but absurd Marxist blather contrary to fact.



(See the previous segment.)


ckaihatsu wrote:
while 'produce' implies 'new stuff made', or 'service rendered to you in person'.)



Truth To Power wrote:
No it doesn't. It just means "relieve scarcity." Which consensual trade does.



'Consensual trade' is a *misnomer* since everything's been *monetized*, and even *financialized* -- meaning that:



In economics, overproduction, oversupply, excess of supply or glut refers to excess of supply over demand of products being offered to the market. This leads to lower prices and/or unsold goods along with the possibility of unemployment.

The demand side equivalent is underconsumption; some consider supply and demand two sides to the same coin – excess supply is only relative to a given demand, and insufficient demand is only relative to a given supply – and thus consider overproduction and underconsumption equivalent.[1]

Overproduction is often attributed as due to previous overinvestment – creation of excess productive capacity, which must then either lie idle (or under capacity), which is unprofitable, or produce an excess supply.

Explanation

Overproduction is the accumulation of unsalable inventories in the hands of businesses. Overproduction is a relative measure, referring to the excess of production over consumption. The tendency for an overproduction of commodities to lead to economic collapse is specific to the capitalist economy. In previous economic formations, an abundance of production created general prosperity. However, in the capitalist economy, commodities are produced for monetary profit. This so-called profit motive, the core of the capitalist economy, creates a dynamic whereby an abundance of commodities has negative consequences. In essence, an abundance of commodities disrupts the conditions for the creation of profit.

The overproduction of commodities forces businesses to reduce production in order to clear inventories. Any reduction in production implies a reduction in employment. A reduction in employment, in turn, reduces consumption. As overproduction is the excess of production above consumption, this reduction in consumption worsens the problem. This creates a "feed-back loop" or "vicious cycle", whereby excess inventories force businesses to reduce production, thereby reducing employment, which in turn reduces the demand for the excess inventories. The general reduction in the level of prices (deflation) caused by the law of supply and demand also forces businesses to reduce production as profits decline. Reduced profits render certain fields of production unprofitable.



https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Overproduction



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
*Do* owners typically create / produce *new values*, though



Truth To Power wrote:
They indisputably do when they provide means of production -- producer goods -- that would not otherwise have been available to the producer, who may or may not own any of the means of production.



B.S. -- this is a *conflation*. You're conflating those who *may* own some means of mass production, with those who may *not* own some means of mass production. The two parties are *clearly* not the same, and they have differing *class interests*, due to non- / ownership of equity capital.

The formal / official 'producer' is the one who creates actual *commodities*, for the company, for sale -- the 'widgets' or whatever -- and is paid a *wage* so that the boss employer can expropriate the worker's surplus labor value.


labor and capital, side-by-side

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
-- I think it's more like internal paper-shuffling and the digital coin-counting of the day's take.



Truth To Power wrote:
But that just proves you don't know anything about production, have -- like most Marxists -- probably never engaged in it, and have decided never to know anything about it.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're going off on a tangent.



Truth To Power wrote:
No I'm not. That is nothing but another bald falsehood from you. I am identifying the indisputable facts of objective physical reality that prove your absurd Marxist tripe is absurd Marxist tripe.



ckaihatsu wrote:
The question / issue here is that of *value*, which you're now having to *sidestep*.



Truth To Power wrote:
No. That is nothing but another bald falsehood from you. I have sidestepped nothing, but have striven to direct your attention to the relevant facts of objective physical reality, and identify your disingenuous denials thereof. You are the one sidestepping every proof that you are objectively wrong, as all readers are invited to confirm.



ckaihatsu wrote:
[QUESTION #001] Does the company's office *staff* do work that produces *new values* for the company -- presumably from good-management -- or are new (commodity) values *expropriated* from the surplus labor value of the employed workers?



Truth To Power wrote:
Only someone who has never engaged in productive labor could ask such a question. Staff workers do work that enables production of value by line workers.




So, Marx argues that human work is both (1) an activity which, by its useful effect, helps to create particular kinds of products, and (2) in an economic sense a value-forming activity that, if it is productively applied, can help create more value than there was before. If an employer hires labour, the employer thinks both about the value that the labour can add within his business, and about how useful the labour service will be for his business operations. That is, the right kind of work not only needs to get done, but it needs to get done in a way that it helps the employer to make money.

If the labour makes no net addition to new value produced, then the employer makes no money from it, and the labour will be only an expense to him. If the labour is only a net expense (overhead), then it is commercially speaking unproductive labour. Yet it may be very necessary to employ this unproductive labour, if, without its performance, considerable capital value would be lost from the employer's financial investments, or if business would fail without it. That is, labour may be very necessary to maintain capital value, even if it does not actually add value to capital, and does not directly add to net profit. So, the employer also buys unproductive labour because the employer's costs in this respect are lower than the loss of value that would occur, if he did not employ unproductive labour to maintain capital value, and to prevent loss of capital value. For example, cleaning work might seem a very menial and low-value activity, but if business equipment fails, customers stay away, and the staff get sick or hurt, it costs the business a lot of extra money.[1]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_ ... ete_labour



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, capital takes a risk in its ventures,



Truth To Power wrote:
You are again just trying to evade the fact that ownership of the means of production ("capital") is not the contractual role of the producer, who arranges for all the means of production to be applied to the production process.



You just mean 'owner', and 'manager', respectively -- as distinct in class interests from that of the *workers*, over the same revenue 'pie'.


material-economic exploitation

Spoiler: show
Image


Spoiler: show
Image



---


Truth To Power wrote:
The Marxist axiom that ownership of the means of production confers ownership of the product is just baldly false.



It *does*, though -- how else can the product be *sold*, for *revenue*, for *profits*, if not by taking ownership of the worker-produced commodity / product / service.


ckaihatsu wrote:
and *labor* takes a risk with the everyday daily expenses and hazards involved in showing up for work.



Truth To Power wrote:
Wrong. Labor is pretty sure of getting paid for its contribution and compensated for the risks it takes by working. The producer, by contrast, has no such guarantee. He assumes the full risk of loss.



You're not listening -- there are costs involved with just *showing up to work*, meaning transportation, housing, etc., *and* the risk of being laid-off, having hours reduced, etc.


ckaihatsu wrote:
Can you give a rough *average* / estimate, maybe, of the *proportions* of natural resources, labor, and producer goods, by capital investment, respectively?



Truth To Power wrote:
It depends entirely on the product, the economic, regulatory, and market environments, the production process, etc. For a modern capitalist economy, the contributions might average out to very roughly 1/4 natural resource rents, 1/2 labor, and 1/4 producer goods. But there are many other factors involved.



Okay, thanks. I ask because you're showing *labor* costs to be a major chunk of the cost of the production process.

Could I go so far as to call those labor costs 'labor value', perhaps -- ? Note:


ckaihatsu wrote:
You *haven't* refuted the labor theory of value because you *acknowledge* that the material inputs are typically [1] natural resources, [2] labor, and [3] producer goods.



Truth To Power wrote:
Wrong. Like Jevons, I have refuted the Labor Theory of Value because I have identified the fact that value is determined by supply and demand, not production cost.
#15263714
Truth To Power wrote:
Forum rules prohibit me to identify ckaihatsu's statements for what they indisputably are, but astute readers will be able to figure it out.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Your *entire politics* rests on your up-valuing of land that was forcibly taken from BIPOC / Native Americans, and given to land speculators at below-market prices.



Truth To Power wrote:
No it doesn't. You are just makin' $#!+ up again, as usual. It has nothing to do with BIPOC or Native Americans. The issues are exactly the same all over the world, and for all of history.



Truth To Power wrote:
<absurd, irrelevant Marxist garbage snipped>



---


Truth To Power wrote:
Garbage. Land titles have been issued for many reasons, speculation being only one of them.



ckaihatsu wrote:
So then roughly what *percentage* of land issued would be to land speculators / 'flippers', and what percentage for 'other' reasons -- ?



Truth To Power wrote:
It's completely irrelevant, as irrelevant as how much of it is at elevation less than 100m and how much between 100m and 200m, etc.




[The] Secretary of War, Henry Knox, said: "The Indians being the prior occupants, possess the right of the soil." His Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, said in 1791 that where Indians lived within state boundaries they should not be interfered with, and that the government should remove white settlers who tried to encroach on them.

But as whites continued to move westward, the pressure on the national government increased. By the time Jefferson became President, in 1800, there were 700,000 white settlers west of the mountains. They moved into Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, in the North; into Alabama and Mississippi in the South. These whites outnumbered the Indians about eight to one. Jefferson now committed the federal government to promote future removal of the Creek and the Cherokee from Georgia. Aggressive activity against the Indians mounted in the Indiana territory under Governor William Henry Harrison.



https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnasl7.html



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're conflating *use* value with *exchange* value



Truth To Power wrote:
No I'm not, you are. I am stating the FACT that VALUE IS exchange value, and what you call "use value" is utility: the capacity to satisfy human desires. Utility affects the demand side of supply and demand, that's all.



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:
-- as soon as a single person makes a single *modification* to the raw land, that's *labor*, confers exchange-value, suggests *pricing*, and turns it into a useable, saleable *commodity*.



Truth To Power wrote:
No, that's just the same baldly false claim you have been making all along. It is just indisputably false as a matter of objective physical fact. Raw land must already be usable before it can be used, modified, improved, etc. by labor; it was ALREADY a usable resource when the first human being saw it; and it became a salable commodity with exchange value as soon as it was appropriated as private property, before any labor was ever expended on it. You just have to refuse to know these facts, because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.



TTP, as soon as the new owner of the raw land *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.

*That* counts as 'internal labor', or 'abstract labor' (Marx) -- and then it's no longer 'raw land' anymore, but real *real estate* at that point.


ckaihatsu wrote:
Raw unlandscaped land is *not* hospitable / readily usable,



Truth To Power wrote:
Yes it is. That is why it often trades for astronomical sums, proving you objectively wrong. That is why our remote ancestors used it to survive for millions of years, proving you objectively wrong.



Pre-*pricing*, land for-millions-of-years was not *private property*.

If *anything* trades for astronomical sums it means that there's massive *price speculation* involved, over its exchange-value bid-up price *on paper*.

You *should* be *objecting* to this, instead of *touting* it, because such bidding wars 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:
:roll: That was the cost of establishing the privilege of owning the land, not of producing the land. Establishing a privilege is not production because it inflicts scarcity rather than relieving it.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
and labor *is* typically applied to turn raw land into real estate.



Truth To Power wrote:
No, that is again just objectively false. Raw land is ALREADY real estate BEFORE any labor is applied to it, and how much and what kind of labor can best be applied to it to realize its productive potential is determined by how useful it ALREADY IS for various purposes.



That's B.S. 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:
Please just stop making the same indisputably false claims over and over again after you have seen them proved false multiple times.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *spitballing* and twisting and turning



Truth To Power wrote:
Your claims are bald and despicable falsehoods. You are the one twisting, turning and evading, and you know it.



ckaihatsu wrote:
to try to justify 'raw land' as being some kind of universal / natural 'pass-through' value -- a 'holy' value from freaking God Himself.



Truth To Power wrote:
No, you simply made that up. I am just identifying the indisputable fact of objective physical reality that raw land has exchange value without any labor having been expended on it, thanks to the desirable public services and infrastructure government has provided, the opportunities and amenities the community has provided, and the physical qualities nature has provided at that location BEFORE any labor is applied to it. You have merely been denying that fact because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil. You have to deny objective facts because the preservation of your false and evil beliefs is more important to you than liberty, justice, improving the material condition of the working class, or the truth.



Are you *hearing* yourself speak -- ?

'Public services', 'government infrastructure', 'community opportunities and amenities' *all* imply *labor* expended, in order to *provide* service, buildings, and institutional-type organizations.

You can't really expect me to believe that services, infrastructure, and community are all going to exist on *raw land*, can you -- ? *Of course* basic labor will be used to *develop* the raw land so that such civic activities can take place in that location.


ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, 'depreciation' / wear-and-tear -- (see 'wear, depletion' f.y.i., in the following model, 'below' the orange colored ring, flat on the ground).



Truth To Power wrote:
Which proves me objectively right and you objectively wrong. Inevitably.



It proves that *empirical*, *objective reality* is correct.


Worldview Diagram

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
What you're *missing* is that there's *no way* to rationally determine what each incremental *use* of an asset's automatic service is worth -- will it be operating for *10,000 duty cycles*, or only 8,000 -- ? And for how many *years* -- ?



Truth To Power wrote:
No. What YOU are missing is that producers do that all the time, every time they buy and sell such assets.



Sure, but that's as a *saleable commodity*.

In the laundromat there *is no* buying-and-selling of the machines themselves -- they're *rentier capital* assets, 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.


ckaihatsu wrote:
As a *customer* I'd like to know if I'm paying my fair proportional share, plus markup, according to what the machine *cost* to make for service.



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.



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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. (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. 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.)


ckaihatsu wrote:
'Improvements' are *also* non-commodity-productive *rentier*-type assets, so that's just more of the same, secondary to the real estate itself.



Truth To Power wrote:
No, that's just another objectively false claim from you. Improvements provided by their owner enable more productive use of the land. They add to production, and unlike the land, would not otherwise have been available.



'Improvements', then, can be *either* equity capital, or rentier capital.


Truth To Power wrote:
<false, absurd and disingenuous Marxist tripe snipped>



ckaihatsu wrote:
But that's *circular* reasoning again



Truth To Power wrote:
No it isn't, any more than the first one was.



ckaihatsu wrote:
-- is depreciation to be valued in *number of uses*, or in *exchange values* -- ?



Truth To Power wrote:
Depreciation is only measured in exchange value.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Could it be *both* -- ?



Truth To Power wrote:
No.



ckaihatsu wrote:
How would those two types of values *correspond*, or *correlate*, exactly, if seen as long rows extending out, day-by-day -- ?



Truth To Power wrote:
:roll: Take an introductory course in math of finance. Or watch half a dozen youtube videos on the subject, so you are at least exposed to the basics even if you refuse to learn any of them.



It's actually an *argument*, not an inquiry -- 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.

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*.

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.


ckaihatsu wrote:
Why is machine service on the *first* day charged the same price as machine service on the *20th year* of service -- ?



Truth To Power wrote:
Supply and demand.



(See the previous segment.)


ckaihatsu wrote:
What about functional / logistical / *material* depreciation, and how pricing corresponds, or does-not-correspond, to *that* -- !



Truth To Power wrote:
:roll: What about you find a willingness to know the fact that the kind of people who are buying and selling such items have those jobs because they know what they are doing, and you do not because you do not?



See the previous segment. Also, you're resorting to a *technocratic* type of argument (of a determining elite of technical specialists) -- that's *statism* / plutocracy.


ckaihatsu wrote:
You *haven't* refuted the labor theory of value because you *acknowledge* that the material inputs are typically [1] natural resources, [2] labor, and [3] producer goods.



Truth To Power wrote:
Wrong. Like Jevons, I have refuted the Labor Theory of Value because I have identified the fact that value is determined by supply and demand, not production cost.



*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



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
What about the U.S. government's costs of warfare, genocide, and 'clearing' the land for speculators and settlers -- ?



Truth To Power wrote:
:roll: That was the cost of establishing the privilege of owning the land, not of producing the land. Establishing a privilege is not production because it inflicts scarcity rather than relieving it.



No contention, but here you're implicitly acknowledging that:


[AXIOM #230202 -- Land needs-to-be-produced (to turn it into the real estate commodity).]


---


Truth To Power wrote:
GET IT??



Truth To Power wrote:
<fallacious, absurd, irrelevant and disingenuous Marxist bull$#!+ snipped>
#15263754
Trying to educate Marxists makes me physically ill. Their constant, relentless dishonesty is so infuriating that it gives me headaches. Forum rules prohibit me to identify ckaihatsu's claims for what they indisputably are, but honest, intelligent readers will be able to do that themselves.
ckaihatsu wrote:Does *this* about cover it -- ?

No. It's irrelevant. Like almost everything you post that is not just baldly false.

<stupid, irrelevant Marxist blather snipped>
'Consensual trade' is a *misnomer* since everything's been *monetized*, and even *financialized*

No, your claim is again just objectively false. There is no reason to think that trade involving money is somehow not consensual. You are just makin' absurd $#!+ up again.
-- meaning that:


<stupid, dishonest Marxist drivel snipped>
B.S.

No, it is an indisputable fact of objective physical reality.
-- this is a *conflation*.

No, that is merely another bald fabrication on your part.
You're conflating those who *may* own some means of mass production, with those who may *not* own some means of mass production.

No I'm not. I am identifying the fact that the economic role of the owner of producer goods is entirely different from that of the owner of natural resources (which roles you, as a Marxist, are forced to conflate, and will say, do, and believe anything whatever in order to avoid distinguishing), which are both different from the contractual role of the employer/producer who obtains rightful ownership of the product by causing it to exist.
The two parties are *clearly* not the same, and they have differing *class interests*, due to non- / ownership of equity capital.

No, that's just another bald falsehood from you. The workers, the producer (employer) and the owner of producer goods have the same "class" interest because they are not privileged; they are all making money by contributing, by aiding production, by relieving scarcity, by making others richer. It is the landowner or other privilege holder whose class interest is different from theirs because he is only taking from the community, and is not contributing anything in return.
The formal / official 'producer' is the one who creates actual *commodities*, for the company, for sale -- the 'widgets' or whatever -- and is paid a *wage* so that the boss employer can expropriate the worker's surplus labor value.

No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. It is nothing but absurd and disingenuous Marxist tripe conclusively falsified by the facts of objective physical reality. The producer is the employer whose contractual role of applying all the production factors -- natural resources, producer goods, and labor -- to the production process causes the product to exist. The surplus value created by his contribution is therefore rightly and legally his, not the worker's, and there is no "expropriation" by the employer because the worker has voluntarily agreed to accept his wages in return for his labor. The stupid, evil, and utterly transparent Marxist lie is that the employer and the provider of producer goods are not making any contribution to production, and the products their contributions cause to exist do so solely thanks to the contributions of wage workers.

<stupid, deceitful, and transparently false Marxist tripe snipped>
You just mean 'owner', and 'manager', respectively -- as distinct in class interests from that of the *workers*, over the same revenue 'pie'.

No. The distinction is between the owner of privileges, the owner (provider) of producer goods, and the employer. The class interest of the privileged in taking without contributing, legally making others poorer, is entirely different from those of the other three parties who actually contribute to production -- wage workers, employers (producers), and providers of producer goods -- who all make contributions to production that make others richer. The stupid, filthy, evil lie of Marxism is that the employer and the provider of producer goods, who are the benefactors of the workers, and make them richer by providing them with access to economic opportunity they would not otherwise have, are in the same class as the privileged, who deprive workers of economic opportunity they would otherwise have, and are thus the natural enemies of workers.

There is no revenue "pie" to share because the privileged, the workers, the employer, and the provider of producer goods have all already agreed to the terms the employer/producer offered.

<stupid, evil, dishonest Marxist garbage snipped>
It *does*, though

No, that is just flat false as a matter of objective physical fact. It is the employer/producer who fulfills the contractual role of arranging for all the factors of production to be applied to the production process who legally and rightly owns the product, not the landowner or the provider of producer goods.
-- how else can the product be *sold*, for *revenue*, for *profits*, if not by taking ownership of the worker-produced commodity / product / service.

By the employer/producer who caused it to exist owning the product and thus being able to sell it for a profit. Your claim that the product is "worker-produced" is just another bald falsehood from you because the worker is not the one who caused the product to exist and is therefore not its producer.
You're not listening --

I already proved that claim is false and disingenuous.
there are costs involved with just *showing up to work*, meaning transportation, housing, etc.,

Yes, costs for which they agreed to accept full compensation in their wages.
*and* the risk of being laid-off, having hours reduced, etc.

:lol: :lol: :lol: You mean the "risk" of not being made any better off than if the employer had never existed...?

Don't you understand that that fact conclusively refutes all of Marxism?
Okay, thanks. I ask because you're showing *labor* costs to be a major chunk of the cost of the production process.

Duh. Why would employers pay people to work if they weren't contributing anything to production?
Could I go so far as to call those labor costs 'labor value', perhaps -- ?

That is exactly what they are. And the product is intended to be worth more than that. Which proves the Labor Theory of Value and therefore Marxism are objectively false.
#15263828
Truth To Power wrote:
Trying to educate Marxists makes me physically ill. Their constant, relentless dishonesty is so infuriating that it gives me headaches. Forum rules prohibit me to identify ckaihatsu's claims for what they indisputably are, but honest, intelligent readers will be able to do that themselves.



---


Truth To Power wrote:
It could be any combination thereof, because the fact -- which you are trying so hard to evade -- is that at bottom it's the entrepreneur's labor of arranging for all the production factors to be applied to the production process, thus causing the product to exist. By causing the product to exist, he obtains rightful property in it without abrogating anyone else's rights.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Does *this* about cover it -- ?




What Is Cost Synergy?

Cost synergy is the savings in operating costs expected after the merger of two companies. Cost synergies are cost reductions due to the increased efficiencies in the combined company. Cost synergy is one of three major synergy types, with the other two being revenue and financial synergies.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/costsynergy.asp



Truth To Power wrote:
No. It's irrelevant. Like almost everything you post that is not just baldly false.



Truth To Power wrote:
<stupid, irrelevant Marxist blather snipped>



ckaihatsu wrote:
'Consensual trade' is a *misnomer* since everything's been *monetized*, and even *financialized*



Truth To Power wrote:
No, your claim is again just objectively false. There is no reason to think that trade involving money is somehow not consensual. You are just makin' absurd $#!+ up again.



It's not 'consensual' as much as it's 'umbrella'-ed -- as long as the given nation-state, or whatever, is in *charge*, then everything happily speeds along, but if it *doesn't*, then it doesn't.

The bourgeoisie *requires* a state, but workers *don't*.


ckaihatsu wrote:
-- meaning that:

https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Overproduction



Truth To Power wrote:
<stupid, dishonest Marxist drivel snipped>



ckaihatsu wrote:
B.S.



Truth To Power wrote:
No, it is an indisputable fact of objective physical reality.



ckaihatsu wrote:
-- this is a *conflation*.



Truth To Power wrote:
No, that is merely another bald fabrication on your part.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're conflating those who *may* own some means of mass production, with those who may *not* own some means of mass production.



Truth To Power wrote:
No I'm not. I am identifying the fact that the economic role of the owner of producer goods



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(finance)


Truth To Power wrote:
is entirely different from that of the owner of natural resources



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rentier_capitalism


Truth To Power wrote:
(which roles you, as a Marxist, are forced to conflate, and will say, do, and believe anything whatever in order to avoid distinguishing), which are both different from the contractual role of the employer/producer



The employer is not necessarily the *producer* -- think about it:

If the 'office' only handled personnel and the books, then what are they *producing* -- ? Databases and spreadsheets -- ? What good are *those* to any given individual? They're not *products*, that people want to *buy* -- they're *internal*, from internal non-commodity-productive labor, or 'management'.

'Producing', and 'production' *should* mean the output of wage workers, hired to produce the actual goods and services that can be sold for revenue and profits.

*And*:



The degree to which the needs are satisfied is often accepted as a measure of economic well-being.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_(economics)



Social Production Worldview

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Truth To Power wrote:
who obtains rightful ownership of the product by causing it to exist.



If the capitalist 'caused' a product to exist, then why were *wage workers* even hired *at all* -- ? Maybe it's because of *this*:



Production is the process of combining various inputs, both material (such as metal, wood, glass, or plastics) and immaterial (such as plans, or knowledge) in order to create output. Ideally this output will be a good or service which has value and contributes to the utility of individuals.[1] The area of economics that focuses on production is called production theory, and it is closely related to the consumption (or consumer) theory of economics.[2]

The production process and output directly result from productively utilising the original inputs (or factors of production). Known as primary producer goods or services, land, labour, and capital are deemed the three fundamental production factors.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_(economics)



---


Truth To Power wrote:
They indisputably do when they provide means of production -- producer goods -- that would not otherwise have been available to the producer, who may or may not own any of the means of production.



ckaihatsu wrote:
The two parties are *clearly* not the same, and they have differing *class interests*, due to non- / ownership of equity capital.



Truth To Power wrote:
No, that's just another bald falsehood from you. The workers, the producer (employer) and the owner of producer goods have the same "class" interest because they are not privileged; they are all making money by contributing, by aiding production, by relieving scarcity, by making others richer.




Marxist analysis of society identifies two main social groups:

• Labour (the proletariat or workers) includes anyone who earns their livelihood by selling their labor power and being paid a wage or salary for their labor time. They have little choice but to work for capital, since they typically have no independent way to survive.

• Capital (the bourgeoisie or capitalists) includes anyone who gets their income not from labor as much as from the surplus value they appropriate from the workers who create wealth. The income of the capitalists, therefore, is based on their exploitation of the workers (proletariat).

Not all class struggle is violent or necessarily radical, as with strikes and lockouts. Class antagonism may instead be expressed as low worker morale, minor sabotage and pilferage, and individual workers' abuse of petty authority and hoarding of information. It may also be expressed on a larger scale by support for socialist or populist parties. On the employers' side, the use of union busting legal firms and the lobbying for anti-union laws are forms of class struggle.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_con ... rspectives



---

Truth To Power wrote:
It is the landowner or other privilege holder whose class interest is different from theirs because he is only taking from the community, and is not contributing anything in return.



ckaihatsu wrote:
The formal / official 'producer' is the one who creates actual *commodities*, for the company, for sale -- the 'widgets' or whatever -- and is paid a *wage* so that the boss employer can expropriate the worker's surplus labor value.



Truth To Power wrote:
No, that is just another bald falsehood from you. It is nothing but absurd and disingenuous Marxist tripe conclusively falsified by the facts of objective physical reality. The producer is the employer whose contractual role of applying all the production factors -- natural resources, producer goods, and labor -- to the production process causes the product to exist. The surplus value created by his contribution is therefore rightly and legally his, not the worker's, and there is no "expropriation" by the employer because the worker has voluntarily agreed to accept his wages in return for his labor. The stupid, evil, and utterly transparent Marxist lie is that the employer and the provider of producer goods are not making any contribution to production, and the products their contributions cause to exist do so solely thanks to the contributions of wage workers.




There is not harmony of interest, but a clash between the interests of the masters and the interests of the workers:

The interests of the two parties are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much as possible, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour. It is not difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute and force the other into compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen… In all disputes, the master can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer or merchant…could normally live a year or two on the stocks they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week.68

The logic of Smith’s argument was to move beyond a critique of the unproductive hangovers from ‘feudalism’, made from the point of view of the industrial capitalists, to a critique of the capitalists themselves—to see them as unproductive parasites, living off profits which come from the labour of workers. It was a logic transmitted, via the writings of Ricardo (who attacked the landowners from the point of view of industrial capitalism), to the first socialist economists of the 1820s and 1830s and to Karl Marx. The weapons which the greatest political economist of the Enlightenment used to fight the old order were then used to fight the new one.

Smith shied away from drawing such conclusions. He was able to do so by mixing his notion that value came from labour with another contrary notion. In this, he said the value of a commodity depended on the combined ‘revenues’ from it of landlord, capitalist and worker. Despite the circularity of the argument (revenues depend on value, but value is the sum of the revenues), this was the idea which was to be taken up by Malthus and the great populariser Jean Baptiste Say and to become the orthodoxy in mainstream economics after the death of Ricardo.

Nevertheless, Smith was the first to portray the central outlines of the new economic system which was emerging. It was a picture which gave British capitalists some idea of where they were going, and the would-be capitalists of other countries some notion of what to copy. It was published just as a century and a quarter of relative social peace was giving way to a new era of revolutionary upheaval. Its ideas were to shape the attitudes of many of the key actors in the new era.


Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 261-262



---


Truth To Power wrote:
<stupid, deceitful, and transparently false Marxist tripe snipped>



ckaihatsu wrote:
You just mean 'owner', and 'manager', respectively -- as distinct in class interests from that of the *workers*, over the same revenue 'pie'.



Truth To Power wrote:
No. The distinction is between the owner of privileges, the owner (provider) of producer goods, and the employer. The class interest of the privileged in taking without contributing, legally making others poorer, is entirely different from those of the other three parties who actually contribute to production -- wage workers, employers (producers), and providers of producer goods -- who all make contributions to production that make others richer. The stupid, filthy, evil lie of Marxism is that the employer and the provider of producer goods, who are the benefactors of the workers, and make them richer by providing them with access to economic opportunity they would not otherwise have, are in the same class as the privileged, who deprive workers of economic opportunity they would otherwise have, and are thus the natural enemies of workers.



(See the previous segment.)


Truth To Power wrote:
There is no revenue "pie" to share because the privileged, the workers, the employer, and the provider of producer goods have all already agreed to the terms the employer/producer offered.



Truth To Power wrote:
<stupid, evil, dishonest Marxist garbage snipped>




The urban traders often influenced life in the countryside in another way, by encouraging less prosperous peasants to take up industrial crafts in the countryside, away from the controls of the urban guilds. There was the growth of a ‘putting-out’ system. The merchant would provide the raw materials to rural workers, who would transform them into finished products in their own homes, with little choice but to accept the price the merchant gave them.

How important such a change could be is shown by the case of the textile industry. In the mid-14th century 96 percent of England’s most important export, wool, was turned into cloth abroad, mainly in the towns of Flanders. A century later 50 percent was exported already woven. The merchants had increased their profits by weakening the hold of the Flemish artisans. But they had also done something more. They had taken hold of some of the rural labour which had previously been subject to the feudal lord. The long term effect was to replace one form of exploitation by another. The direct robbery of the products of peasant labour was replaced by a system in which individual workers voluntarily accepted less than the full value of their products in return for being supplied with raw materials or tools.

This was not fully capitalist production as we know it. Production in large workplaces directly under the control of an entrepreneur was confined to a very few industries, mainly mining. The putting-out system relied on people who could still regard themselves as their own bosses. But it was a step towards fully developed capitalism. The merchant had moved from simply buying and selling goods to worrying about their production, and the direct producers could no longer obtain a livelihood unless a portion of their output went to the merchant as profit.

What is more, both the merchant and the producer were increasingly subject to the dictates of markets over which they had no control. Dispersed rural producers lacked the power of the town guilds to limit output and control prices. They had no choice but to keep abreast of new cost-cutting techniques introduced by other producers. The feudal organisation of production was giving way to a quite different organisation, in which competition led to investment and investment intensified competition. For the moment, this only occurred in a few gaps within the old system. But it was like an acid, eating into and changing the world around it.



Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 156-157



---


Truth To Power wrote:
[that] the means of production confers ownership of the product [is false]



ckaihatsu wrote:
It *does*, though



Truth To Power wrote:
No, that is just flat false as a matter of objective physical fact. It is the employer/producer who fulfills the contractual role of arranging for all the factors of production to be applied to the production process who legally and rightly owns the product, not the landowner or the provider of producer goods.



The 'provider of producer goods' / equity capital / means-of-mass-production *is* the same as the 'employer/producer', because the source investment (equity) capital is used to *provide* the production goods (factory / workplace). Rent and interest payments to the landowner / rentier-capitalist, *detract* from equity capital and wages, respectively.


ckaihatsu wrote:
-- how else can the product be *sold*, for *revenue*, for *profits*, if not by taking ownership of the worker-produced commodity / product / service.



Truth To Power wrote:
By the employer/producer who caused it to exist owning the product and thus being able to sell it for a profit.



'Caused it to exist' is a *very* interesting phrasing -- how, exactly, *did* the employer / manager / office bring that product into existence -- ?

Recall that a typical office only 'produces' spreadsheets and databases, which are certainly not the company's product for-sale to the public.


Truth To Power wrote:
Your claim that the product is "worker-produced" is just another bald falsehood from you because the worker is not the one who caused the product to exist and is therefore not its producer.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not listening --



Truth To Power wrote:
I already proved that claim is false and disingenuous.



ckaihatsu wrote:
there are costs involved with just *showing up to work*, meaning transportation, housing, etc.,



Truth To Power wrote:
Yes, costs for which they agreed to accept full compensation in their wages.



ckaihatsu wrote:
*and* the risk of being laid-off, having hours reduced, etc.



Truth To Power wrote:
:lol: :lol: :lol: You mean the "risk" of not being made any better off than if the employer had never existed...?



This is *disingenuous*, though, because under capitalism employers *have to* exist -- they're part and parcel of what capitalism *is*, for the expropriation of surplus labor value from wage workers.


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Truth To Power wrote:
Don't you understand that that fact conclusively refutes all of Marxism?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, thanks. I ask because you're showing *labor* costs to be a major chunk of the cost of the production process.



Truth To Power wrote:
Duh. Why would employers pay people to work if they weren't contributing anything to production?



ckaihatsu wrote:
Could I go so far as to call those labor costs 'labor value', perhaps -- ?



Truth To Power wrote:
That is exactly what they are. And the product is intended to be worth more than that. Which proves the Labor Theory of Value and therefore Marxism are objectively false.



The labor theory of value tracks *labor value* inputs, not *financial* quantities.



In Marxian economics, surplus value is the difference between the amount raised through a sale of a product and the amount it cost to the owner of that product to manufacture it: i.e. the amount raised through sale of the product minus the cost of the materials, plant and labour power. The concept originated in Ricardian socialism, with the term "surplus value" itself being coined by William Thompson in 1824;



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value
#15263831
<stupid, irrelevant garbage snipped>
ckaihatsu wrote:TTP, as soon as the new owner of the raw land

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.
*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.

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.
*That* counts as 'internal labor', or 'abstract labor' (Marx)

The moment you attribute any statement to Marx, you are effectively stipulating that it is a stupid, evil lie.
-- and then it's no longer 'raw land' anymore, but real *real estate* at that point.

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.
Pre-*pricing*, land for-millions-of-years was not *private property*.

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.
If *anything* trades for astronomical sums it means that there's massive *price speculation* involved, over its exchange-value bid-up price *on paper*.

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.
You *should* be *objecting* to this, instead of *touting* it,

I'm not "touting" it. I'm just stating the fact that it proves me objectively right and you and Marxism objectively wrong.
because such bidding wars

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.
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:

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.
That's B.S.

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.
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.

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.

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.
Are you *hearing* yourself speak -- ?

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.
'Public services', 'government infrastructure', 'community opportunities and amenities' *all* imply *labor* expended, in order to *provide* service, buildings, and institutional-type organizations.

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.
You can't really expect me to believe that services, infrastructure, and community are all going to exist on *raw land*, can you -- ?

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.
*Of course* basic labor will be used to *develop* the raw land so that such civic activities can take place in that location.

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.
It proves that *empirical*, *objective reality* is correct.

And that Marxism, and your beliefs, are false and evil excrement.
Sure, but that's as a *saleable commodity*.

Which proves you wrong and your beliefs false and evil.
In the laundromat there *is no* buying-and-selling of the machines themselves --

What an absurd load of filth. How do you incorrectly imagine the machines got there, hmmmmm?
they're *rentier capital* assets,

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

Yes, of course it does.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

No, that's just more of your stupid, anti-economic Marxist filth contrary to fact.
(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.

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.
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.)

Producer goods like laundromat machines are not rentier assets because they provide access to opportunity that would not otherwise have been available. 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.
'Improvements', then, can be *either* equity capital, or rentier capital.

No, because they would not otherwise have been available.
It's actually an *argument*, not an inquiry

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.
-- 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.

Intention has nothing to do with it. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.
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*.

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.
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.

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.
(See the previous segment.)

Where I demolished you again, as always.
See the previous segment.

Demolished.
Also, you're resorting to a *technocratic* type of argument (of a determining elite of technical specialists) -- that's *statism* / plutocracy.

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*:

No. There is nothing impossible about the medium of exchange serving also as unit of account and measure of value.
No contention, but here you're implicitly acknowledging that:

[AXIOM #230202 -- Land needs-to-be-produced (to turn it into the real estate commodity).]

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.
#15266244
ckaihatsu wrote:It's not 'consensual' as much as it's 'umbrella'-ed -- as long as the given nation-state, or whatever, is in *charge*, then everything happily speeds along, but if it *doesn't*, then it doesn't.

It's consensual in the sense that neither party is using force. Both parties are of course under duress in the sense that their rights have been removed and given to the privileged, especially landowners.
The bourgeoisie *requires* a state, but workers *don't*.

No; secure, exclusive land tenure requires a state, and if workers want the benefit of increased production that it enables, they require it too.
The employer is not necessarily the *producer* -- think about it:

Oh, I have, believe me, and far more clearly and deeply than you. The employer is necessarily the producer because he performs the contractual role of arranging for all the production factors to be applied to the production process, thus causing the product to exist.
If the 'office' only handled personnel and the books, then what are they *producing* -- ? Databases and spreadsheets -- ? What good are *those* to any given individual? They're not *products*, that people want to *buy* -- they're *internal*, from internal non-commodity-productive labor, or 'management'.

Yes, and...? If the worker only performed the motions of using a machine, with no machine there, he wouldn't be producing anything either. So what? That is not what either the employer or the worker actually do do.
'Producing', and 'production' *should* mean the output of wage workers, hired to produce the actual goods and services that can be sold for revenue and profits.

No they shouldn't. They should mean what they actually do mean: the actions that relieve scarcity.
<absurd and disingenuous Marxist garbage snipped>
If the capitalist 'caused' a product to exist, then why were *wage workers* even hired *at all* -- ?

Same reason the land rent was paid and the provider of capital (producer goods) compensated with interest or dividends: to secure the relevant production factors.
Maybe it's because of *this*: The production process and output directly result from productively utilising the original inputs (or factors of production). Known as primary producer goods or services, land, labour, and capital are deemed the three fundamental production factors.

Right. The producer/employer/entrepreneur is precisely the one who does that, not the worker.
The 'provider of producer goods' / equity capital / means-of-mass-production *is* the same as the 'employer/producer',

Nope. Flat wrong. Although the same person might fulfill both roles, they are not the same. The employer/producer/entrepreneur fulfills the contractual role of arranging for all the production factors to be applied to the production process. The provider of producer goods just enables them to be used in return for interest or dividends.
because the source investment (equity) capital is used to *provide* the production goods (factory / workplace).

The investor provides those things in return for interest or dividends, but it is the employer/producer/entrepreneur who actually deploys, controls and uses them to cause products to exist.
Rent and interest payments to the landowner / rentier-capitalist, *detract* from equity capital and wages, respectively.

No, that's just baldly false. Wages and rents are set by the market, as are product prices. What detracts from equity capital and wages are the taxes that government uses to fund the desirable public services and infrastructure workers and producers then have to pay landowners for permission to access. Workers, producers and consumers have to pay for government twice so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for nothing.
'Caused it to exist' is a *very* interesting phrasing

Because it identifies a fact that you have to contrive some means of not knowing.
-- how, exactly, *did* the employer / manager / office bring that product into existence -- ?

By arranging for all the relevant production factors to be applied to its production.
Recall that a typical office only 'produces' spreadsheets and databases, which are certainly not the company's product for-sale to the public.

What an absurd load of anti-economic Marxist tripe. You have obviously never worked in a typical office, or any other place that actually produces anything. I strongly recommend that you spend some time with Thomas Sowell, the black American economist who was a Marxist until he started working, and learned a bit about reality.
This is *disingenuous*, though, because under capitalism employers *have to* exist -- they're part and parcel of what capitalism *is*, for the expropriation of surplus labor value from wage workers.

No, that's just more absurd and disingenuous Marxist bull$#!+. Employers exist under capitalism because there are production opportunities that require coordination of production factors including labor; and the only expropriation is by the privileged, especially landowners, who take but do not contribute.
<absurd and disingenuous Marxist tripe snipped>
The labor theory of value tracks *labor value* inputs,

No it doesn't. It just falsely and dishonestly ascribes to wage labor value that is actually created by employers/producers/entrepreneurs.
not *financial* quantities.

I.e., not what is actually the measure of value.
The poor saved your life

Where did you live where you thought erroneously […]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1641162497951518722

China & Ukraine

I see, so the more immigration a nation sees, the[…]

I thought airlines were already requiring people l[…]