: Try living on that Minimum wage as your only source of income- your employer can pay that to teh 17 yr olds, because usually they still live at hoime, and thus out of teh pockets of parents. Let's see . . . if I work 80 hours/week at $6 (employers here can't pay people the min wage, as a rule) that's gross of $2016 per month. Now, I'm paying around $202 in taxes and live by myself in a new communal home that the City of Seattle approved in 2000 for $170 per month. I'm frugal and spend $400 on food and clothes while walking to work. That leaves an excess of $1314 per month for me to save and invest. Hey, within one year I'll have $15,000 provided I didn't invest it, else, I'd have more.
My point is that much of the poverty is caused by silly pointless gov't regulations, especially housing codes. Much poverty would be alleviated if we let people find their own way. And, yes, the above narrative was exaggerated for effect.
: Both teh above arguments would hold true in times of full employement, however, capitalism, more or less, naturally has a constant state of unemployment- a reserve industrial army,- of Labour.
Pure speculation. The US has been at full employment for 7 or so years. Much longer if it weren't for George Bush.
: In fact, we have some bankers over here, openly talking about the 'necessary' level of unemployment for the economy. If competition is fierce between workers for Jobs, this allows capitalists to hold wages down even further, and in unskilled sectors this could fall below living costs and teh capacity to maintain labour, hence minimum wages. Since I face poverty if I fail to get a job, and teh emplkoyer only faces trying to find a like skilled worker, its clear that power differs greatly, in their favour (the fact that teh entire system is skewed in their favour also helps...)...
Not here, anyways. I couldn't speak for your neck of the woods.
: : Could the capitalist gain wealth from his capital unless he out-competed the other capitalists for the workers labor?
: Could he ever fail to fin labourers among teh impoverished or those in fear of impoverishment?
Yes, he could fail. I've run time and again into people who you couldn't count on them to do a job at almost any price. Business is about maximizing profit, and not about lowering cost. Hireability is about a great many things just one of which is cost.
: : Could other capitalists provide the same or similar capital?
: Yes, but perhaps not in my home town, or community (which is another factor ignored by the contract model- the capitalist is not bound by geography, the workers are....)
No. It's just as difficult for the capitalist; probably more so. Factors of production do not simply pick up and move except in high-skill low-plant level industries such as computer software. And software engineers are not really the people we're talking about.
: : Given my cumulative answer so far I would say this: outside social interaction with others there is no "working" except for oneself as a lone individual on a distant island (we would agree on this). Basically, without society there is no social production; this is a self-evident truth, and a tautology. There is no pre-social individual; right back atcha. We are social beings and, thus, independent on one another.
: Correct- entirely, and then within that network of dependance we must analyse equality, and power...
Maybe. This doesn't really say much. What we must do is keep open a vibrant evolutionary society with the knowledge taht whatever model we choose we do so before experience. So, any model of society must be readily disposed of as it failures manifest themselves. Moreover, the new model must seek at bettering the institutions and morals taht provide for us all. Evolution Forever.
: : This is incorrect as labor consumers (i.e. capitalists) are competitive and not monopsonies (i.e. single consumer in the market). Unless there is a massive conspiracy of capitalists, and I mean every single person who employs another, to rig labor prices such a situation does not exist. But you have already posted that "the capitalists are not in charge, in fact, no one is in charge".
: No, because all capitalist come to teh table with alike intent- to pay us as little as possible, for as much work as possible.
Yes, and it works this way for any seller of any commodity, including that of labor.
: They come to us, coerced as we are with teh trheat of poverty, and say that you may only have goods on condition of working for me and my benefit- this is a struyctural power,
Did you completely ignore my earlier analysis of power relationships? Capitalists continuously compete with each other as they have radically opposing interests.
: and a structural monopoly- as a class they monopolise the means of living,so that we must work for them...
Well, I don't know. Earlier you specifically stated taht "the capitalists are not in charge, in fact, no one is in charge". Which is it. Also, see my post, tomorrow, on "Classifications: A Rational Perspective". You completely gloss over the fact that capitalists continuously compete with one another and, thus, can have no homogenous class interest as their aims continuously conflict. Monopolies are synonymous with a single interest and Marx himself acknowledged as new competitors (read capitalists) entered the market prices would be pushed lower. Implicitly, Marx acknowledged (without realizing it) that capitalists can have no homogenous class interests as they continually compete with one another. Remember, by definition, a monopoly does not compete with itself.
: : The same thing is said for the capitalist. His allocation is merely a tool for the prole to gain his wages far aborve where he otherwise would achieve. The capitalist is a tool of the worker.
: But what is capital- except a condition, a barrier, a negative rather than a positive, it is teh bar that prevents us working... moree on this idea in another post...
Well, this is like saying a shovel is a barrier to digging a hole. Capital is the means of production; that is its definition. I can't really answer this other than by saying , huh?
: : Now you're just plain wrong. Monopoly means only one interest with the means to do one particular activity. As there are a multitude of capitalists there is no such thing as a monopoly on capital. This only occurs when the State has nationalized the means of production.
: No, since only capitalists own and have effectvie control of teh means of production, they ahve a monopoly as a class-
Uh. No. Again, see my post tomorrow on classifications. But further the only way for this to be true was that such capitalists are in harmonious and non-competitive collusion with each other to fix all prices (remember, you already denied this). The real issue is that they are not monopsonists on the labor market. A capitalist that does not outcompete other capitalists for labor earns no profit as no goods are produced.
: further, you'd be surpirsed how few conpanies tehre are out there, many so-called competing firms are owned by the same uber-corp...
Yes, and often the uber-corp forces them to act like competitors. Each division is usually a cost center and so competes on the labor markets for scarce labor resources with other divisions from the same company. Experience has shown that a massively vertical top-down corp is usually less efficient than through cost-centers. Remember, they're in business to make a profit.
: : Don't get metaphysical on me now. You've beaten the whole value thing to death and have basically said that 'value is based upon the only constant which is the means of labor'. (Let's just say that real estate doesn't exist which, in the real world, is also a constant.) You've said this and it's fine. However . . . that is solely your opinion, and as relevant to the current issue as the Scholatics arguing the metaphysical nature of God.
: Yes, I've seen real estate raised as an alternative constant before, but that wouldn't work in cases of cottage industries, nor itself of farms and agricultural capitalism. And it is still relevent...
I agree. As are, to this discussion, all metaphysical speculations about the nature of the universe and "value" and whatnot.
: : How could I ever determine that? Rather, compared to the knowledge of everyone combined I know very little. Society, in it's infinite wisdom determines value. This, which I can know nothing except by faith that 'price fluctuates around value'. I randomly buy what psychologically suits me while hoping I have chosen the right value at the right price. However, to you the thing sells for $5 so its value is very close to $5; I've answered your question by using your earlier post: any price I pay is approximately the right price, sometimes a little more sometimes a little less.
: Sometimes a lot less- loss leaders and teh such- and I suspect a tad of sophistry here from you- have you really never bought, say a book, for one dollar, when normally they are 100, and thought 'wow, a bargain'?
Now, you're giving the exact argument taht forced the economists into the marginal utility camp. The input theory just didn't have any predictive value concerning price and quantity produced. It could make general, usually propagandistic, statements and not much else. How could I say wow as obviously no person would sell an item at 'below' it's socially assigned value. If I purchased it for $1 that must have been the value its inputs.
Look, I'll be real honest here, personally I see Marx's whole input theory as sophistry. It seemed as if the man tried to construct his theories to achieve some outcome already predetermined in his mind as "good". Just my observation; I may have misread him.
: : Given that you said "the worker is paid $1 . . . the capitalist sells at the exchange value of $5 . . . the worker has been 'alienated' [my choice] $4. If I paid $5 for it, than the value is $5. If I buy anything at all, even without looking, I must be paying the right price for it given your own above statement.
: Second hand? house sales?
Again, you undercut your own theory. This, among interest, etc. are many things unexplained by the input theory.
: : Maybe metaphysically. But I cannot translate metaphysics to the real world of social analysis. Any anwer I could make would effectively be meaningless; even if you were to give me an answer to parrot back to you I would just be saying something to say something.
: Or maybe logically, and imaginarilly, and imagination has a strong role in cultural analsysi, remember, money is imaginary...
Kind of. So is algebra. Doesn't mean it doesn't contain useful and meaningful data.
: : Good point. Wealth follows from the necessity of the action and the importance it plays in the overall scheme of wealth creation. I'm only wrong if you've solved the "scarcity" issue by discovering the means so that any possible desire can be had by any person at any time. One big issue would be taht we would have to increase the size of the earth through social action as it is finite and, thus, a scarce resource (see my earlier post for more detailed analysis).
: As I said, demand can be made finite, since desire is structured socially, we could meet teh effective necessary demand of everyone, and feed, clothe and house (reasonably and comfortably) every man woman and child on earth...
Ah, yes, now we have it. The Skinnerian behaviorist has finally revealed his true self. If only we can modify people's behavior by constructing their reality to its best purpose we will have the 'great' society. (Already, falsely, assumed here is the tabula rosa theory of the mind). This is the horrible connection drawn by some who misread (justly so, I might add) Hume and the other dogmatic empiracists. They didn't realized that their valid criticisms could be used to propose that all could behave according to the enlightened rational objective of an entiity called "society". How odd, now you're swinging empirical.
If they don't demand the finite we must 'train' them to through their environment. I don't remember, but someone on this board was bashing Wittgenstein earlier for behaviorism.
: : Come on. The tragedy of the commons is the biggest ecological issue there is. And further delineations of property are the solution to these externalities. As for the social, protecting people from the effects of their anti-social behavior, such as irresponsible sex, is a phenomenon of politics, such as democracy, and not the market.
: No- Bhopal springs to mind- have they paid their compensation yet- don't think so. union Carbide owns works over here, they own shares in ICI Wilton, near my old home town, which was 4th in a league of carcinogen polluters recently published- Zeneca near Lancaster came 7th. Its cheaper to pollute. Indomnesia, fish stocks- all of it based n capitalisms drive for growth and profits, now, and inability to plan long term...
I'm not sure this was in my reply but, externalities, such as pollution, are solved by further delineation of property. For more info, see Ronald Coase's 1992 Noble prize-winning essay. It's called The Law, The Firm, and The Market, good book.
: : Mmmm. No, good subject. But I must, again, refer to the anti-social behavior protected by "moral" concerns over wealth distribution. Immoral behavior is caused by an apathetic society without the guts to care for its less fortunate (read: orphans and widows, not single mothers or lazy job hoppers).
: Are single mothers Lazy- I could have sworn they were a vital primary industry- raising workers- or is raising children not work by your book?
I suppose digging up holes in the ground and filling them up again could be construed as work (Hegel surely thought so.) And, more importantly, children from these homes, depending on the definition, are 8 to 33 times more likely to be subject to abuse. Abuse, by the way, that causes anti-social and not social behavior. The social cost of such is simply massive.
: : Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because poverty exists doesn't mean that immediate changes in distributive methods are in order. Again, look at all the anti-social behavior protected and rewarded through political action. In America, those below the poverty line are massively less likely to be involved in a long-term marriage, or any at all. And like you I believe trends to be a phenomenon of social wholes. However, the solution is to quite subsidizing ill behavior over socially positive behavior and massively changing our beauracratized, instuitional [mis] education system that teaches the relativity of all personal behvior. Schools are breeding grounds for the anti-social behaviors of the future.
: Erm- has it never occured to you that it is precisely teh poverty and social exclusion of these people that leads to anti-social behaviour? teh state intervention you outline is teh management of poverty, teh system in place because poverty is, and has to be, on going- because these people are part of (absurd concept) surplus population. they are human beings, they are part of our society, they should not be excluded by poverty...
They are also a part of other's choices. And this is the part that socialists don't want to face. We can either allow people to socialize themselves through trial and error or we can make sure they get socialized by supressing choices. This is called behaviorism. Period. The price method or force; it's your call.
: : Only in a metaphysically different world than the one we live.
: Nope, they all strike me as perfectly practical and valid...
Before experience, of course.
