There might have been some “overproduction” in the sense that people (or some poeple) could have rested and “do nothing” a bit more if there was a sane capital structure.
And although nobody can know for sure, I am strongly convinced that there is not much overproduction and most of the waste is in malinvestment that would have been used for other purposes. Specially the finantial sector is completely overblown and most of the engineers and matematicians working there would not have stopped working, but would have gone to research and product development, producing new technologies and better products. Also, with a longer term view, there would not be as much lawyers (and probably) also less economists and those people would have studied something more useful, and would still be working in producing other services.
So there might be some “overproduction”, but in reality the big part of it is malinvestment.
Surplus value is labour theory of value stuff. The labour theory (again, common) has been refuted for a long time. The problem is a lot of the ideas we’re discussing tie together, and you’re getting them in disconnected pieces, which might make it harder to understand. I am the first to admit I am no econ professor. My understanding is pretty solid, but my pedagogy is weak sometimes.
All profit is psychological. That’s the labour theory, subjective theory disconnect. You’re assuming an apple and an orange are the same good. By trading the thing I want less for the thing I want more, I realize a profit. I value an orange more than the apple I had. They are very different, not just in their physical characteristics, but how I value them.
Again, you can’t prove there wasn’t a material gain, as we didn’t swap like items, so while you may equate an apple to an orange, we both know they are not the same thing, particularly to people who dislike one or the other.
Not every trade has to result in capital accumulation. It can. You can trade apples for gold, but the guy trading you the gold values the perishable and consumable apples more.
The zero sum mentality about trade doesn’t actually make sense. If trades were zero sum, they would be a wash, or win-lose. But we already know they can be win-win if both parties get the thing they wanted more than what they gave up. The difference in understanding the items in trade and their values to each party, is psychological. That is how one person can value a coke more than a dollar, another a dollar more than a coke, and when they come together, an exchange occurs.
That’s absolutely false. Markets are not synonymous with no rules.
There are plenty of rules, but they are determined in the process of free exchange. Private property owners set their own rules and cooperate with others through contractual agreements.
Markets also in our day and age are not free, therefore, it is important to state “free markets” or “unhampered markets”, where violence is prohibited, and government interference is the most pervasive form of violence of them all.
I will agree (and insist) that “free markets” is synonymous with ancap. I know that’s not what people are use to. But perhaps we should get people use to it. I often use free market instead of anarchy and expect to elaborate later in a discussion if needed.
Surplus value is labour theory of value stuff. The labour theory (again, common) has been refuted for a long time. The problem is a lot of the ideas we’re discussing tie together, and you’re getting them in disconnected pieces, which might make it harder to understand
Ya, perhaps it is a lay-over from my economic ignorance days. I am well aware of the failures of LTV. I would stil say, tho, that it seems you need to have more than you’re going to use in order to capitalize tho, otherwise you just washed. Is there any literature dealing specifically with overproduction (and once agian, not waste, just that someone has to make more than they are going to use to profit.)
I value an orange more than the apple I had. They are very different, not just in their physical characteristics, but how I value them
Yes, but once again, you can’t reinvest apples into your thimble factory. So how is capital created? As far as I know, by saving, which implies you had more than you needed.
Not every trade has to result in capital accumulation. It can. You can trade apples for gold, but the guy trading you the gold values the perishable and consumable apples more
Ya, I think that was the disconnect. I was equating wealth and profits with capital accumulation.
BTW, I am enjoyig having this discussion, but it has largely been largely off topic. To get back to the point, there is nothing seperating non-ideological anarchists of both sides from working together. In fact, I despise Republican philosophy, but I would much rather work with you guys (most of you) than with Democrats.
The initial assumption was that the production was unneeded (you saying that it was mainly due to producing too much stuff, me saying that it was mainly due to producing the wrong stuff). Manufacturing 1 million cars can be ok, but manufacturing 2 million might result in half million car being waste, because nobody wants to use them. Even if its a perfect working car its still waste. And I know the example is extremist and irrealist, because if you lower the price enough someone will use it, but you get what I want to say. If you dont follow consumer preferences you will end up creating a bunch of working stuff that nobody wants, and therefore that is waste, even when its in working condition. Building something that work but its useless giving the conditions is something the government does a lot.
Manufacturing 1 million cars can be ok, but manufacturing 2 million might result in half million car being waste, because nobody wants to use them. Even if its a perfect working car its still waste. And I know the example is extremist and irrealist, because if you lower the price enough someone will use it, but you get what I want to say. If you dont follow consumer preferences you will end up creating a bunch of working stuff that nobody wants, and therefore that is waste, even when its in working condition. Building something that work but its useless giving the conditions is something the government does a lot.
Yes, I believe that is called entrepreneurial risk.
But it’s not so much too much stuff, it’s producing stuff that is not directly needed by the producer; extra-personal production.
Economics is awesome as you get further into it. It can help provide a deeper understanding of action, and thus life. I really encourage you to explore Austrianism, particularly as a value free discipline. If you try to impose your own values on an interpretation of reality, you could end up working from false premises and that is unsatisfying intellectually and (from my experience) practically.