ALL of us benefit from the market, little one. You know that computer you’re using? That’s you benefitting from the market. SHOCKHORRORSHOCK.
Capitalists are free to act in ways which aren’t…capitalistic. They’re free to petition the government to keep people from competing with them, at which point we have a hampered market.
But that’s way over your head, I know.
Ok, I’m waiting for that to have some sort of logical connection.
aka manual, backbreaking labor, since you believe the “capitalist” doesn’t produce anything (which is another reason why you’re not taken seriously).
You really need to come to at least the year 1880.
Thus showing that you truly know naught of what you write. Only the most hardcore Marxist or teenybopper Marxist could ever possibly believe that capitalists don’t produce anything, i.e. only manual, backbreaking labor matters.
Capital doesnt fall from the sky. Someone makes tt. If people are unable to get their own capital the question becomes “Why?”. And generally if you look at countries with large numbers of extremely poor people (living on <$1/day) you will see that they do not have property rights. And when you look at more devoloped countries you find a distorted credit market where politically connected people can borrow printed (counterfeited) money straight from the government, while average people have to pay a higher rate of interest, and there is a low savings rate.
You are again ignoring
That capital comes from savings
That capital is tailored to a specific consumer preference (capital doesnt just have value because labor was expended producing it, it needs to serve consumer interests)
That because of those facts capital has to be managed in terms of risk and in terms of making sure it is consumer oriented (the role of the "capitalist)
You can think what you want, but a normal profit is the market value of the capitalists enterpreneurial ability (whether you personally agree with it or not).
If I was a capitalist who was overcharging the customer and underpaying the worker, another capitalist would come and charge slightly less and pay his workers slightly more and steal my workers/customers. And then a new, lower level of profit would be the norm. So in a free competitive market the profit that the capitalist makes is always the normal profit which is not exploitative, and represents the value added by what he does. When there is a monopoly there is exploitation, but a monopoly is by definition not a competitive free market scenario, thats why I am arguing for the free market and not monopolies.
The workers are important, they add value, and so does the capitalist. And many times the worker is also a capitalist, and vice versa. I am not saying one is more important than the other, but each adds a certain type and amount of value to the good/service and they are compensated based on that.
A) I think you misunderstood why he makes the claim you know not what you say. He wasn’t saying that markets can function without labor. He was saying you don’t know what your talking about. Don’t try to overanalyze simple statements.
B) This remark is 100% opinion based and will never be able to be supported by real evidence.
First off if you simply judge things on a money level many business owners who take the risk at owning a business suffer substantial financial and credit losses when their risks did not return a profit. Meanwhile their employee’s while they may have lost their job they incurred no dept from the risky business. They simply loss the job that they once had and are available to move onto the next.
Financial Risk in Business ownership is EXTREMELY HIGH. If you do not understand this then it is a very safe assumption to guess you know next to nothing about owning your own business.
Comparing the emotional wellbeing and phsycological status of a small/medium business owner to an individual employee. You could call this an opinion but I beleive it will be far easier to back up then the assertion you make, I beleive business owners are subject to much more mental anguish then simple laborers.
When comparing the relationship status of small/medium business owners to regular employees its every easy, you might even be able to find statistics about this, its obvious that they are subject to far more relationship/family problems as opposed to a laborer who only has to be concerne with 9-5.
Also comparing labor hours as well. Most business owners put in 50% more labor time then their employee’s. Are you going to make the argument that they are exploiting themselves?
c) When considering all the factors and risks of being an owner if the financial gains were not greater then being a regular employee you wouldn’t have business owners any where. You wouldn’t have business. Despite the grandoise idea you might have that there are some good natured altruistic individuals willing to be business owners withotu the financial benefits factored in. Without additional financial insentive many people would be detired from persuing their dreams in that way. Beleiving otherwise is a fantasy.
d) Finally, making a statement like the one you made clearly displays your lack of knowledge about the perils and difficulties of being a private business owner. There are plenty of competent people completly cappable of being owners but actively chose not to. The life of labor is simple and content for many.
That what I have been saying in my previous posts… The current economic system practiced is not an ideal capitalist system but it is an ideal system for capitalists.
Not all of us benefit from the market. If that were to be true then there would be no starvation in the world. To say everyone benefits from the market or that the market meets everyone’s needs is purely utopianism.
The capitalist’s job is not to produce, it is to manage capital. To say that in some instances the capitalist may produce is no counter argument at all to my point that a market cannot function without labor, therefore the labor producers are more important then the labor buyers.
Yes it is and there are extreme benefits to it but why is it not implemented? Because it takes away from the capitalists rights, the capitalists which own the market.
Well first we need to start off by saying, what are rights? I think the workers have the right to the capital their labor producers and you do not.
You cant have a market without consumers, therefore the consumers are more important than the producers and the producers should be paying the consumers for their valuable service and its exploitation for the producers to demand payment from the consumers.
Its a stupid argument form. No one is “more important”, you are just trying to invent a class war for the sake of having a class war. The worker and capitalist add value and are compensated according to their value added in the form of a normal profit.
Yes someone makes the capital, the workers! The market cannot survive without labor.
Besides the fact that free markets tend to monopolize, wages, historically have not been determined by the market. They have been won by collective struggle against the capitalist, against the market process.
Clearly you see the capitalist as more important than the worker. Seeing as the capitalist reaps so much reward and you see that as justified. The workers, in my opinion, are more important because their labor keeps the market functioning. I’m sounding like a broken record.
The selling price of a product is determined by the laws of supply and demand (the market) while the wages of the worker are not. There cannot be consumers without workers. There can be workers without capitalists, there can be consumers without capitalists, there cannot be capitalists without workers or consumers.
Like I said, social classes and power are determined by property ownership and capital, obviously, if the capitalist reaps so much reward and you see that is justified, you think the capitalist plays a more important role in the market.
I’m trying to start a class war, eh? Yes, it’s mises.org today, lewrockwell.com tomorrow and then the world.
Yet you do benefit from the market, despite your foot-stomping tantrum.
Except that it isn’t that, either. You reveal yourself as some superficial teenybopper Marxist who hates that mommy and daddy made him get a job at Sbarro for the summer.
Non sequitur.
No, it’s not. Please stop thinking that production only comes from manual, backbreaking labor.
And you wonder why you’re not taken seriously. It’s ignorant statements like that which do it.
Here’s something to make you spew green vomit: wages come from profit. Profit logically and temporally came first. Then wages. I know that runs counter to everything Marxist, but it’s true.
You still don’t understand our argument. We are making the claim that the workers ARE the capitalists. They are just as much as capitalists as the owners, no different. THey face they same decisions but have chosen a different path.
Also, what if those who employed the workers weren’t there? Every argument proposed by you has been one in which you refused to follow your argument to conclusion. What or who encourages a man to work in a steel faundry as opposed to tending his own land?
By saying I benefit from the market is just as obvious as saying the capitalists benefit from the market. Just because a lot of people “benefit” from the market doesn’t make “Free exchange benefits everyone” true.
How is it not? The capitalists, the upper class, the poltical class, call it what you want, benefit from the market and benefit from the state.
That is what all of you have been saying, “the capitalists manages capital”. I am not saying that production only comes from backbreaking labor, you are asserting that. When I speak of the producers, I am speaking of the workers that produce a product that consumers buy.
What market are you refering to? The current mercantilist market, or a free-market capitalist market? How would a capitalist originally come about his capital? Is it not through producing it?
Workers’ self-management is probably not favorable to those who benefit from our current mercantilist economy. I think workers’ self-management is suppressed by the government for the benefit of the mercantilist. No, I do not believe that workers have the right to the actual physical good they produce. However, this would be because the worker has agreed to exchange his labor for some of the owner’s capital (not the actual good itself). I ask you again, how is it that the owner of any capital originally came about his capital? Do you mean to say that a factory owner was born with a factory in his hand?
What’s wrong with a free-market monopoly? Also, the workers wouldn’t have those job if the were’nt for the owners capital. So what is more important now? Huh? Huh? Huh?
No one can survive without labor. If you dont labor, you just lie on the couch and starve to death. Labor isnt a magic deity, it is what it is.
Free markets do not tend to monopolize. Wages and normal profits are a reflection of value added. I have gotten a 13% raise over two years since I started this job. I am not a member of a union, management has given me better wages because I have improved my productivity. The unionized store down the street has lower average worker productivity than the nonunionized store that I work at, and the union is actually making workers less productive and preventing their wages from rising. Regardless of what Karl Marx, Father of the People (I was born in the soviet union, and I drank the same Kool Aid), tells you, these claims are not true as there is no evidence for them. Marxism is a RELIGION not a thoery.
Again, I am saying that in a free market people are compensated according to their value added. You are pretending that there is a “class struggle” and I “see the capitalist as more important than the worker”, which I do not. The capitalists arent out to “exploit” you, its all in your head. If you want to be worried, be worried about the government, criminals, and monopolists, they are the ones doing the exploitation.
You are correct that a market would be less effecient if every single person attempted at being a business owner. However you are incorrect in the statement that not everyone is at least permited the chance. I’m not sure what world you live in but the one I live on any one, at least in the states, has the right to attempt at being a business owner. I know of no such rule or law which prevents anyone from at least attempting.
Any employee who is a laborer by voluntary choice also has the choice to quit his job and attempt to start his own business. No one has a right to tell him otherwise.
When I criticize capitalism, I criticize the current economic system. There are many ways a capitalist may come about his capital, loans from a bank, loans from a friend, inheritance ect. The capitalist uses the large profit reaped from the workers and buys more machinery , the workers labor bought the machines they work on (the tools used to exploit them) so that the capitalist can hire more workers and make more profit.
Workers management would not be favorable to anyone who benefits from a capitalist market. Why don’t the works have the right to the good they produce? Their labor buys the machines they create it on and their labor covers any maintenance fees, the only thing is the owner has the deeds to the machine. Like I said, the contract is invalid because there are no other non-exploitative, practical alternatives, this is getting pointless.. really it is, I don’t see you changing your view and I don’t see me changing mine and I really don’t feel like repeating the same things in every post.
If you are asking that question, I am going to assume you are in favor of monopolies. So, what is just about a free market monopoly? The owner’s capital is the worker’s labor.
The owners of the means of production which receive beneficial treatment from the state. The CEO of company A which receives beneficial treatment from the state also benefits from the workers of his company. Large corporations produce the most jobs and large corporations receive the most beneficial state treatment.
What are you trying to say?
Slaves probably had a chance to escape slavery, that is no justification for slavery.