It’s a poor critique, because what he is describing is a market. He’s re-creating capitalism, and this is what those quotes, taken of out context, from Mises is saying
I will address the questions you raised (I had a whole post typed out and lost it) at some point but would just like to deal with this; if you could scroll down further to section I.3 that would be good. The reason I say this is because I.2 is about market socialism (not my position) whereas I.3 is about moneyless communism and collectivism (with labour vouchers).
I answered this for you days ago. The definition of socialism, used by Mises, is the same one you can google. It’s the same definition used on the Socialism wiki page, written by, tada socialists. The definition described in the article above is not the widely accepted view of socialism. Though considering your semantical I wouldn’t be surprised if you used that definition. Note that days after me pointing this out to you, your still laboring over a befuddled issue of semantics.
The workers of a factory are paid according to supply and demand. It is therefore misleading to ask what share of the factories profits they are entitled to. They are not paid a share of the factories profits at all, but a market wage. They would be paid the same if the factory makes a loss or if the capitalist chose to bury the output instead of selling it. The capitalist produces the entire output of the factory. He, too, is paid according to supply and demand. He makes a profit if the market value of what he produced is more than what he spent producing it, e.g. buying raw materials and paying workers. He does not take away a share of the workers profits in return for administrating production. This is elementary supply and demand economics.
The way I see it, if you invest all your savings into the material you have every right to profit. Your job is to pay the workers the market wage, nothing else. Remember, you bought the material for them to work on. He would have never been able to produce without the material. If the workers want to own the means of production they can simply buy the factory. There is a lot of risk involved, and contrary to what people think you do not buy the worker, the worker sells his labour.
If he doesn’t like the job he can get another one. This type of system forces you to get higher education, or simply find a higher paying job.
The main question is how much should a “backbreaking” worker get payed? Are you also saying that backbreaking work is “real work” and other jobs do not matter?
But back to the main question, who is to decide how much the pay should be?And on what grounds?
Some people think a toilet scrubber should be payed 5 bucks an hour others think 50$ an hour.Value is subjective.Example:
Example:
I now work as a paper boy and get payed 2.6k a month, I have to deliver 800 journals in a neighbourhood. I have to finish at 9:30 am, therefore I wake up everyday around 2am every morning. The reason this job pays so much, is simple, nobody wants to do it.
Some other people that work the “journal delivery bussiness” think they are being “exploited”, others like me think it’s too easy(I develloped a great system,hehe).
Evil, I also respect your honesty and I apologize if I sounded antagonistic. Regarding economic calculation, before you dig into Mises’ “Human Action” and “Socialism” I suggest you spend 10mins on this 1958 essay (which was recently posted on another thread here):I, Pencil
As for your opposition to capitalism on moral grounds, consider this scenario. Laborer X and Laborer Y both “earn” 80 labor vouchers (LV) a month. X decides to “spend” all 80 LV each month (dinners, ice-cream, drinks, parties, the works). Y is more frugal and spends only 40 LV and saves 40 LV a month. Ten years down the road, what is immoral about X voluntarily agreeing to do some work for Y in exchange for Y’s unspent LVs? What is immoral about different human actions and human decisions resulting in different outcomes down the road? What is immoral about individual sovereignty and responsibility for one’s own actions? Finally, how could any voluntary exchange (human interaction) be immoral?
In terms of viability, capital only exists because Y saved 40 LV/month. If everyone spent all their LVs all the time, there’d be no “means of production” to fight over.
It would take a terrible arrogance to assume that investors, entrepreneurs and managers are not at all involved in the process of producing the products and services we consume, and that only the hands that physically touch something are required to make it happen with the speed and efficiency with which the modern firm does so.
In terms of viability, capital only exists because Y saved 40 LV/month. If everyone spent all their LVs all the time, there’d be no “means of production” to fight over.
It would take a terrible arrogance to assume that investors, entrepreneurs and managers are not at all involved in the process of producing the products and services we consume, and that only the hands that physically touch something are required to make it happen with the speed and efficiency with which the modern firm does so.
Entrepreneurs and managers are productive. Investment/ownership is a provider, only necessary under the propertarian system.
No. What your doing is using the definition of Capitalism, applying yuor own personal theories, and deducing conclusions from it. Thats far beyond just establishing the definition.
I as well use the same definition of Capitalism found in wiki, or anywhere else. The definition alone does not conclude the involvement of certain things as you suggest, like the state. I should have expected this in your befuddled confused semantics world, you add a bunch of other fluff that doesn’t necessarily follow from the definition of Capitalism. Like a state, or "absolute property rights(Which you have never explained the meaning of). I’m not arguing whether the absence of a state is or is not possible in Capitalism. I am saying that you cannot properly deduce that from the definition alone, unless your confused, as you continue to be.
So given given your attempt to try rebuke me, you can walk away embarassed now. Thanks. Do you actually have a criticism here or are you just following me around trolling?
A statement of complete economic ignorance. Why don’t we just get rid of savings all together and see how far our capital stock grows. It’s clear you don’t understand the roll of savers(capitalists).
No. What your doing is using the definition of Capitalism, applying yuor own personal theories, and deducing conclusions from it. Thats far beyond just establishing the definition.
I as well use the same definition of Capitalism found in wiki, or anywhere else. The definition alone does not conclude the involvement of certain things as you suggest, like the state. I should have expected this in your befuddled confused semantics world, you add a bunch of other fluff that doesn’t necessarily follow from the definition of Capitalism. Like a state, or "absolute property rights(Which you have never explained the meaning of). I’m not arguing whether the absence of a state is or is not possible in Capitalism. I am saying that you cannot properly deduce that from the definition alone, unless your confused, as you continue to be.
So given given your attempt to try rebuke me, you can walk away embarassed now. Thanks. Do you actually have a criticism here or are you just following me around trolling?
Once again, like the statue in that harbor, your dishonesty shines bright under the guise of liberty.
I never said capitalism requires a state. But I said that it can have a state, and has had throughout its history.
I have defined what I mean by absolute property laws 4 or 5 times now.
I have also repeatedly pointed out to you that you can run from it all you want saying “it’s just semantics.” But your definition of capitalism (voluntary exchange) is far from any established definition (problem 1) but more importantly, is entirely incoherent for any kind of rational discourse.
Don’t get mad at me because you willingly engage in deception and I call you out on it.
A statement of complete economic ignorance. Why don’t we just get rid of savings all together and see how far our capital stock grows. It’s clear you don’t understand the roll of savers(capitalists).
You apparently didn’t read that sentence at all, as I acknowledged the role of the investor in the propertarian system. He/she is a provider. Ownership itself does not produce anything. It provides captial for people to produce things.
But whatever, say the same thing as me and call me ignorant for it… doesn’t that make you ignorant too?
So where in my definition of Capitalism am I being dishonest?
No you have not defined anything. You can’t even stick to a single definition. In fact you can’t even agree on simple english phrases. To make matters worse it sounds like your endorsing multiple definitions of Socialism as well.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned
The above definition is realized under a model of voluntary exchange. How can this be denied? I’m not saying that other forms of Capitalism cannot exist. In fact I would argue that removing Capitalism and markets all together is completely impossible, as it tries to deny praxeology. What I am saying is, the conclusion of voluntary exchange, is the private means of production.
I see that you:
A) Became confused in our last debacle where you went scurrying away unable to answer my quesitons or
B) Are upset that I’ve pointed out the fallacies, and now your trying to mis-represent my position. Thanks
So explain to us then Mr. Honesty, how the above provided definition of Capitalis is inherently tyrannical. Based on the definition alone. Furthermore, explain why it’s tyrannical that two people cannot occupy the same scarce resource at once.
And for the record, you’ve never explained what Absolute Property rights meant. In fact you can’t define anything without using history. You’ve read too much marxist jargon and actually believe that history is a refuting mechanism, designed to promote your own ideology.
He’ll probably give you his personal view on the history of capitalism. Omit most of the important questions, and only answer those he wants with wonderful rhetoric.
Ownership is simply an an ackwnoledgement that no two people can occupy the same scarce resource at the same given time. This is just you getting hung up on semantics again, not like the word ownerhsip.
Look your dragging me back into a fruitless argument over items that are of not a concern to socialists or capitalists alike. What you need to do is explain to us, how your system is not just a re-defined regirgitation of the market. How are you not just trying to re-create everything, as an afterthought to markets.
Call it what you like, it call it socialism, call it market socialism. But what your doing is trying to rebuild capitalism, while trying as best you can to omit any termonology that relates to it.
