Have you read Bohm-Bawerk’s Karl Marx and the Close of His System? Or Mises’ Marxism Unmasked? Because if you haven’t, I’d say you still have some metaphorical leg-work to do on your own before you’re in a position to effectively understand the criticisms of Marxism; and it’s outright goofy to expect thoroughgoing and systemic criticism from a forum.
And sweat shops are do to “capitalism.”
I think most of the workers in those videos were wearing shoes.
There’s so much stupidity and confusion in your belligerent post that I refuse to go over it point by point. But I just want to respond to two points.
The validity of the exploitation theory of interest is contingent upon the validity of the the labor theory of value, which states that all value is “created” by labor. Marx claimed that market prices fluctuate around the “true” long-run value, but diverges from it in the short-run because of utility or “use value,” which was in his mind a distortion. This theory cannot explain the formation of market prices in anyway whatever.
First, the labor theory of value cannot explain why capital intensive goods (which require less labor for production) usually, if not always, demand higher market prices relative to labor intensive goods. It cannot explain why fiat paper currency, say a $500 bill, is freely exchanged for plasma screen TVs. It’s obvious that the degree of labor required to produce the former (the $500 bill) is infinitesimal when compared to the latter. Furthermore, it cannot explain why a bottle of beer is worth so much more at the local New York nightclub relative to the average supermarket, though the beers are physically identical, and may have been produced in the same exact factory.
Such inconsistencies were readily admitted by the classical economists. Here’s Ricardo:
The bottle of beer is worth more at the nightclub relative to the bottle of beer at the supermarket precisely because the former is not identical to the latter. They are different goods. The bottle of beer at the nightclub satisfies a different function, a different desire. A person is willing to play $11 for that beer, for example, because he is in a social setting and wants to “loosen up,” or he may want to “fit in,” or that club may be exclusive, ect, ect. Therefore, value is entirely subjectively determined, and does not depend on imaginary broad social forces which are exploitative in nature. Consumers don’t care how things are produced (the toothpaste does not have a label of socially necessary labor time on it), only that it can satiate subjective desires. Likewise, the wine which was initially placed in the cellar, and the wine which came out of the cellar after four years, are different economic goods.
The economy does not produce commodities; it produces satisfaction.
Next, the theoretical untenability of the LTV, and all cost-of-production theories, is that (a) it confuses causality, and (b) refuses to acknowledge that the factors of production are all co-dependent, that is, that they are independently barren. Labor produces nothing without capital and nature, and capital and nature produce nothing without labor. Marx’ exaltation of labor is entirely arbitrary and ideological. He may as well have said that value stems from the fruitfullness of nature. It simply has no theoretical support. Furthermore, to say that a bottle of fine champagne demands a high market price because the factors required to produce it also demand high market prices is pure confusion. Champagne grown in the fields of France demands a high market price because its quality is the finest in the world. And since that region creates such fine champagne (fertile soil, perfect climate, ect), the rent for that land is high. The causal chain runes from consumers => economic system => nature.
The reason why prices fall to their costs is because of the price mechanism and competition (the profit/loss constraint). Excess demand leads to a profit rate above the rate of time preference (profit) which draws resources away from other sectors towards that sector. Those who cannot satiate consumer desires lose access to their resources.
Here’s Bohm-Bawerk:
And finally, Marx logically deduced (from an incorrect premise) that the rate of profit and real wages will fall together untill there is a crises. Unfortunately for Marx, there is an inverse relationship between the average rate of profit and real wages. As one declines, the other rises, and vice versa. In fact, they may both rise together in the face of technological innovation, or the discovery of new and more efficient capital combinations.
Here’s Samuelson:
Once we carry out Marx’s framework to its logical conclusions, we see that it simply does not explain the real world in anyway whatever. We must, therefore, dismiss it. Profit, to put it simply, is the result of transforming future goods (labor is a future good) into present goods. Individuals place a value premium on present goods realtive to future goods (I prefer a gold chain today over a gold chain 10 days from now, 10 yeas from now, ect); this yeilds surplus value. The belief that there is some objective mystical value, which exists independently of human action, is absurd and has been empirically invalidated. Value is not created; it is expressed.
Non sequitur, and no it doesn’t. An individual can engage in production, and thousands of individuals can engage in production. The former is forced to employ very direct and unremunerative methods. He can better attain his goals and increase his remuneration if he uses the capitals of others, and works in an organized setting. But production does not depend on society. Economics exists on Crusoe’s isolated island.
On iTunes U, the Mises institute has an excellent lecture series on Marx and Marxism. In particular, it covers Bohm-Bawerk’s criticism of Marxism, as well as a fairley detailed refutation of his class-analysis. Maybe you’d be interested in checking it out, Drace.
“Marx on capitalist economics”
While we’re at it let me recommend you Kent Hovind on biology and geophysics
“Marx on capitalist economics”
While we’re at it let me recommend you Kent Hovind on biology and geophysics
I loled.
Though, to be fair, Marx isn’t as bad as Hovind. Dr. Dino is in a cranky class unto himself.
What kind of “economical/social” relation is that? So should they or shouldn’t they have any share in the profit? How about the salesperson, the marketing person, or the guy who maintains and fixes the machines?
Did they own/buy (or rent) the machines, the land, the building, the steel, and the power needed to build the train? Are they the ones paying the cooks, the janitors, bus drivers, and the guys who fix and maintain the machines, or someone else?
Nothing. So why would worker A – who’s wrenching nuts on the train – be entitled to something while worker B who’s doing a much harder work of push-ups in his living room (try it – wrenching is much easier) is entitled to nothing. Shouldn’t worker B also receive something?
Z.
Poor Drace. It’s him versus like eight of us.
Brilliant, ridiculously brilliant, the whole response, but this awesome quote especially. In fact this post just became one of my favs.
Thanks. I rushed it (I’m supposed to be working on my presentation >.<), made many grammatical mistakes, and left out some important aspects. He is really confused, and an adequate response would require many many pages.
You’ve got to hand it to him, he’s brave lol.
Drace, allow me to offer some advice. You appear to have already made up your mind about capitalism being the root of all evil and socialism being the solution. If you wish to back up your position in debates you really should learn how capitalism works (not just on a superficial level either) in order to refute the capitalists claims. Try to be as open minded as possible. You might just find out you’ve been sitting on the wrong side of the fence the entire time!
Everything is a species of everything else. Everything is energy.
The hypothetical example created was that if a worker put a year of labor onto creating a $5500 train that takes 5 years to create, he is not entitled to 1/5 of it, but instead merely the present value of the goods he produced. He goes on to say that if he did nothing but gather scraps of metal for the project, he deserves perhaps about $900.
Going by this argument, if the worker did nothing but draw the blue prints, he is not entitled to any of the share, as the present value of a piece of paper with instructions is worthless. It ignores the mechanics of value, and doesn’t attribute market factors for the phenomenon of value either, but rather just assumes that prices are governed by the concept of present vs future goods without any evidence and merely an unimaginable example to show the point. Its not a very scientific argument.
(Please excuse the horrible quoting behavior. Getting used to this new editor and stuff.)
Esuric’s very comprehensive reply addressed most of the fallacies here, but I want to address this point specifically, because it seems like nobody has yet.
The “present value” of a good isn’t its value if it were to be consumed immediately. The present value of a good refers to the sum of all its future value discounted by time (based on the subjective time preference of the individual). A “piece of paper with instructions” is not worthless in the present as long as someone has a desire to, at some point in time, follow the instructions to achieve the end results. A worker drawing blueprints would earn money based on how much those blueprints are valued by others.
No, I think that coercion is tortious persuasion.
so, you don’t disagree with the philosophy on Mises.org you just prefer to use different words and phrases.
Sat. 10/04/24 11:34 EDT
.post #67
Rape is a species of sex.
Robbery is a species of business.
Murder is a species of medical surgery.
Physical force is a species of reason.
You’re just playing Orwellian word games.
Persuasion includes the option to reject what is being offered, whereas coercion does not.
Failing to discriminate between fundamentally different things, and intentionally misusing language, is not serious discussion.
excellent post MMMark
Persuasion includes the option to reject what is being offered,
Is this always true? Surely you’ve heard stories of young kids being persuaded into doing things they otherwise wouldn’t.
Sat. 10/04/24 12:37 EDT
.post #68
Only if it’s tautological.
Is this always true? Surely you’ve heard stories of young kids being persuaded into doing things they otherwise wouldn’t.
But it still includes the option of rejecting whatever the offer may be.
Rejecting either coercion or persuasion may have negative consequences, it’s true - but whereas the negative consequence of resisting coercion is a direct physical attack from the coercer, the negative consequences of rejecting an attempt at persuasion are anything from starving to death to someone changing their opinion of you, none of which are external attacks on your person.
The starving man offered a job at less than a dollar per hour is still very much presented with a voluntary choice. He can work for the employer, eventually earning enough to buy food and improve his lot in life; he can choose to starve to death; or he can work for someone else who offers better conditions, better pay, etc. (or provide value to others in some other way). It’s not the fault of capitalism that hunger and poor working conditions exist, but capitalism provides the most effective means for alleviating such circumstances.
Sat. 10/04/24 17:34 EDT
.post #73
I think you could have found a more interesting challenge. For example, you could have invoked the case of blackmail, then pointed out that, by my criterion, blackmail is “coercive.”