It is not only the workers that sacrifice, the owners also sacrifice but not as much as the workers and their sacrifice is not as important to the function of the market that they benefit from so much. There is a lot of stress, emotional and physical that come with working, that is a sacrifice I say, when you take into account a market cannot function without labor. A market cannot function without workers, that is why I see it fit that they are not fiscally exploited.
A person can be as selfish or selfless as he or she want as long as he or she doesn’t violate the rights of others. Now, go ahead, run to your people at RevLeft, and tell them how evil I am. Lol.
I see the fiscal exploitation that happen in capitalist workplaces as a violation of individual’s rights.
The economic system practiced in any industrialized nation is not the ideal capitalist system for society but it is ideal for the capitalists. I wouldn’t exactly call fiscal exploitation in a capitalist workplace as mystical, implying I am dogmatist, I showed you how capitalism as an economic system exploits workers but you denied it without any counter argument instead just called me a child like you do in all your posts directed towards me.
How do you quatify that?
Basically what you are saying here is “I feel that the workers are more important because they do the physical work”. The labor theory of value isnt an economic statement, its a religious, ethical belief with no evidence behind it.
Yes the worker does the phyisical work and uses the inputs and capital to make a final good/service. The capitalist assumes and manages risk and capital, and makes decisions relating to the consumer and the worker. The price is not equal to the wage because the capitalist also has to be compensated for his value added, plus you have to pay for the capital and inputs. I already pointed this out to you multiple times in the thread.
Who gets to define the criteria of being “fiscally exploited”?
There is plenty of stress that comes with life, does that mean that I’m being “exploited” by it? If anything, the markets have drastically reduced the sacrifices, and discomforts that are necessary to exist.
If the worker agrees to work for less than the “full value” of the good, how is that a violation of the worker’s rights?
The market in which the owners benefit so much from cannot survive without labor.
No where did I mention the LTV. I say the workers are more important because a market cannot survive without labor. I realize that there must be payment for the machinery ect but the owners still reap a ridiculous (imo) profit. Markets do not meet the needs of society as a whole. Historically there have been self-managed businesses (btw, Rothbard supported autogestion, just a fun fact) in which wages increased and productivity increased. I posted links somewhere in the thread.
Because there is no non-exploitative, practical alternative. Not everyone can be an owner or self-employed.
Laughable nonsense. You have no clue about that which you write.
So a market can function without labor?
Who gets to define the words we are using right now?
You are taking what I said out of context. I was responding to someone else saying that they did not take into account the emotional and physical aspect of being a worker.
Y’see, no one takes you seriously because you actually believe such refuted-to-death nonsense as “fiscal exploitation”. Seriously. Wake up and smell the marginal revolution.
No, it isn’t. They’re hamstrung by assloads of governmental interference.
I would, since it’s the stuff of myths and has never been shown to be.
No, you just pouted and stomped your feet.
And you wonder why you’re not taken seriously?
So only manual, backbreaking labor is important? That IS what you believe.
That you are taking my objection too personally. I guess this is what I get for not using more obvious emotional cues to make my post emotionaly & politically correct. I don’t think my objection was out of line, honestly.
Yes, generalize me as part of the crowd of “The Mods”, when it was most likley an individual mod or admin (i.e. individual human being behind a computer terminal) that did the banning.
This will score you emotional brownie points with those reading who value such things, but I’m not sure what it does regarding the amount of objections to your actual arguments that have popped up in this thread.
BTW, I didn’t ban you, nor did I even know you were banned, so I apologize if I am unable to sympathize. Maybe you should find out by asking the mods individually & doing a little bit of questioning instead of being dramatic about it?
People don’t need to form a market. They can just try to be self sufficient and make everything they need themselves. But instead one guy makes food and the other guy makes clothes and they trade. And what encourages enables them to do that?
Capital. Human capital and physical capital. One guy learns and buys agriculture equipment, one guy learns to make clothes and gets equipment to make clothes. And where does capital come from?
Savings. Someone has to do work to build capital, or get education. And that is work that is going to that specific capital instead of work going to make a good or service to trade to someone else or to use yourself. So what happens if the capital turns out to be a bad move, and no one wants the product that you make with that capital?
You get burned and your savings and work went to nothing. So making and managing capital is risky. Some people don’t want that risk, they just want a safe job as a worker. Some people take that risk and manage capital professionally. Those are capitalists, and they perform a value adding activity.
Do you understand now?
I believe it because it happens in the market.
I knew you weren’t going to comprehend what I was saying. The capitalists, the social class which benefits off the market, most likely also benefits from discriminatory bailouts and subsidies. Government intervention tends to monopolize, can we agree? Monopolies mean that the capitalist can charge insane prices ect which increases their profit, capitalists like that.
I pouted? You call me a child in every post and then I got banned.. lol.
Labor as in the act of producing things.
In the long run, everybody benefits from a free exchange.
The capitalist that will like that is one that can bribe for or otherwise get a government monopoly. I don’t think any of us here support that, though.
“Capitalists” don’t do that too?
Nitroaddict- Thanks for even addressing the subject.
Yes, capital, the capital that so many people do not have but so few people have a lot of. Capital, the lack of, which prohibits some people from life. Capital, which isn’t necessary to the markets survival. Labor, necessary to the markets survival. Labor, produces the capital that the capitalist reap so much of.
Capital comes from labor.
I am assuming you mean economically safe, because like I said you and others are not taking into account the emotional and physical tolls of labor. I still don’t think that the capitalist deserves the amount of profit he reaps. The capitalist wants the wages as low as possible, social struggle forces the capitalist to higher the wages. Now, if the wages were made higher by a process separate from aspects of the market (to some extent) why did they raise the wages? If the workers are not that important to the business or market.
Why do people die from starvation then?
I know none of you support that but that is the reality. The state was created by the social class that benefits off the market the most, this relationship between capitalists and state continued and that is why there are discriminatory bailouts and subsidies ect.
Capitalists, as in the owners of the means of production, which do not produce but manage and collect capital.
And the market cannot function without the entrepreneur, unless we are all robots whose wants never change. Can there be non-capitalistic entrepreneur?
So a worker does not have the right to work for whatever wage he agrees to? If the worker’s right being violated, who is violator? Is the employer who participated in said violation, the worker who participated in said violation, or both?
So, when Standard Oil derived over 300 products from the waste of kerosene production, only Rockefeller benefitted? What about the consumers who enjoyed lower prices and more stuff to make their lives easier?
So you are saying that under your system, no one would starve to death. If the answer is “yes”, dare I call you a utopian?
There is something called autogestion, Rothbard advocated it to some extent actually, research it.
You are taking what I said out of context. The “voluntary” agreement is invalid because there are no other non-exploitative, practical alternatives. How can one violate their own rights? I would call the violator, the market and the subjective falsehoods along with it and to some extent the owner.
Although they were lucky enough to have such a circumstance happen, it is no justification for the market itself. Considering, people die at the “hands” of the market.
To say that everyone benefits from the market is a utopian.
Rothbard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVmRwjjTmJ0&feature=channel_page