Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Print Page - Why are these forums dead?

I Read This

I Drew This => General Discussion => Topic started by: wodan46 on July 03, 2009, 16:13:23 EDT



Title: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: wodan46 on July 03, 2009, 16:13:23 EDT
While its true that the 3 bloggers stopped posting, it isn't as if politics has stopped.  If anything, politics has become a bit more interesting, now that we have a candidate who isn't blatantly and obviously bad like Bush was.  The central debates in these forums have been between those who lean Libertarian and those who lean Socialist, and with the Republicans pushed aside, that is the exact debate to be center stage in government today.  The socialist leaners accuse the libertarian leaners of causing the economic collapse with their deregulatory attitudes, while the libertarian leaners accuse the socialist leaners of swinging too far in the other direction with their handover of power to the government in their attempts to deal with the situation.

We have the perfect thing to argue about, and we aren't even talking actively anymore.  I barely even understand the issues nowadays, because I have no one to argue about it with, or motivate me to research further.  I feel we are missing out on a good opportunity.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Medivh on July 04, 2009, 11:00:35 EDT
Everyone got sick of Psy cancer at exactly the same time. That'd be my guess.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 06, 2009, 02:28:47 EDT
Everyone got sick of Psy cancer at exactly the same time. That'd be my guess.
The last thing I was debating here was the labor theory of value, hardly a cancer since there are still supporters of LTV.  Also since the crash many Universities are now putting together Marxist and Classical economic courses meaning if LTV wasn't mainstream before this crisis has made it a mainstream theory once again as Karl Marx and Adam Smith are now mainstream alternatives to the economic theories that has been called into question by the crisis. 


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Current on July 06, 2009, 12:19:37 EDT
Wodan, I see your point.

A while ago I decided to stop making first posts.  I found that when I post them others aren't generally that interested in them.  I decided just to react to what others post, but others haven't been posting much for a while.  I've been having discussions on other sites.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Medivh on July 07, 2009, 07:24:51 EDT
Everyone got sick of Psy cancer at exactly the same time. That'd be my guess.
The last thing I was debating here was the labor theory of value, hardly a cancer since there are still supporters of LTV.  Also since the crash many Universities are now putting together Marxist and Classical economic courses meaning if LTV wasn't mainstream before this crisis has made it a mainstream theory once again as Karl Marx and Adam Smith are now mainstream alternatives to the economic theories that has been called into question by the crisis. 


Every time you're involved in a topic, it's a near 100% probability that the topic will turn to LTV. And from there, there's no chance that the same bullshit wont be covered over and over again. It drives most people away. And of late, most of the threads have been derailed in this way.

In this way, I'm basically multiplying x and y and coming up with xy. "Not interested in long threads on LTV" by "all threads are long, and about LTV" equals "bugger this crap, I'm going elsewhere."


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 07, 2009, 14:25:40 EDT
Everyone got sick of Psy cancer at exactly the same time. That'd be my guess.
The last thing I was debating here was the labor theory of value, hardly a cancer since there are still supporters of LTV.  Also since the crash many Universities are now putting together Marxist and Classical economic courses meaning if LTV wasn't mainstream before this crisis has made it a mainstream theory once again as Karl Marx and Adam Smith are now mainstream alternatives to the economic theories that has been called into question by the crisis.  


Every time you're involved in a topic, it's a near 100% probability that the topic will turn to LTV. And from there, there's no chance that the same bullshit wont be covered over and over again. It drives most people away. And of late, most of the threads have been derailed in this way.

In this way, I'm basically multiplying x and y and coming up with xy. "Not interested in long threads on LTV" by "all threads are long, and about LTV" equals "bugger this crap, I'm going elsewhere."

the LTV debate is equivalent to debating if the Earth revolves around the Sun of if the Sun around the Earth.  If you accept LTV you have the exact opposite view of all those that doesn't accept LTV which is why economists still debate LTV as it is not a trivial question.

For example just take the autoworkers, all economists that subscribe to LTV laugh at the idea that the wages of autoworkers are too high, within the logic LTV it is obvious if the workers earned less the cars they produced would be worth less, as the labor that produced said cars would have less worth, since commodity value is determined by the labor value that produced it.   LTV economists point to sweatshop labor proving their point that cheaper labor equals cheaper commodities not necessarily more profits.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Blue Boy from Red Country on July 07, 2009, 19:00:31 EDT
Wodan, I see your point.

A while ago I decided to stop making first posts.  I found that when I post them others aren't generally that interested in them.  I decided just to react to what others post, but others haven't been posting much for a while.  I've been having discussions on other sites.


Kind of what happened with me too... For weeks I kept poking my head in to see that no new posts have been made; I had an inkling to post one myself, but decided not to.

I'm a bit tired of politics. Now that I'm satisfied that my country is being led by people with some sense, I don't care as much about the minutiae. All of the politics I hear anymore is noise anyway; people who shout out without taking the time to think. (I can't believe how paranoid some people act now that Obama is president.)

Of course, I've also been considerably busy as of late too. ::shrug::


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Medivh on July 08, 2009, 06:18:55 EDT
Everyone got sick of Psy cancer at exactly the same time. That'd be my guess.
The last thing I was debating here was the labor theory of value, hardly a cancer since there are still supporters of LTV.  Also since the crash many Universities are now putting together Marxist and Classical economic courses meaning if LTV wasn't mainstream before this crisis has made it a mainstream theory once again as Karl Marx and Adam Smith are now mainstream alternatives to the economic theories that has been called into question by the crisis.  


Every time you're involved in a topic, it's a near 100% probability that the topic will turn to LTV. And from there, there's no chance that the same bullshit wont be covered over and over again. It drives most people away. And of late, most of the threads have been derailed in this way.

In this way, I'm basically multiplying x and y and coming up with xy. "Not interested in long threads on LTV" by "all threads are long, and about LTV" equals "bugger this crap, I'm going elsewhere."

the LTV debate is equivalent to debating if the Earth revolves around the Sun of if the Sun around the Earth.  If you accept LTV you have the exact opposite view of all those that doesn't accept LTV which is why economists still debate LTV as it is not a trivial question.

For example just take the autoworkers, all economists that subscribe to LTV laugh at the idea that the wages of autoworkers are too high, within the logic LTV it is obvious if the workers earned less the cars they produced would be worth less, as the labor that produced said cars would have less worth, since commodity value is determined by the labor value that produced it.   LTV economists point to sweatshop labor proving their point that cheaper labor equals cheaper commodities not necessarily more profits.

Non sequitur. As usual.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Current on July 08, 2009, 06:26:12 EDT
Quote from: Blue Boy from Red Country
Kind of what happened with me too... For weeks I kept poking my head in to see that no new posts have been made; I had an inkling to post one myself, but decided not to.

I'm a bit tired of politics. Now that I'm satisfied that my country is being led by people with some sense, I don't care as much about the minutiae. All of the politics I hear anymore is noise anyway; people who shout out without taking the time to think. (I can't believe how paranoid some people act now that Obama is president.)

Of course, I've also been considerably busy as of late too. ::shrug::
I think that a lot of people were interested in debating politics around the time of the US presidential election.  They've become a bit less interested now.  I don't expect that to last forever though.  Although many criticisms of Obama are over the top many are not.  And, like a wise man once said, just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you ;).

Politics has been very interesting in the UK recently.  Most of parliament have been caught fiddling their expenses, it has been a huge scandal.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 08, 2009, 10:46:35 EDT
Everyone got sick of Psy cancer at exactly the same time. That'd be my guess.
The last thing I was debating here was the labor theory of value, hardly a cancer since there are still supporters of LTV.  Also since the crash many Universities are now putting together Marxist and Classical economic courses meaning if LTV wasn't mainstream before this crisis has made it a mainstream theory once again as Karl Marx and Adam Smith are now mainstream alternatives to the economic theories that has been called into question by the crisis.  


Every time you're involved in a topic, it's a near 100% probability that the topic will turn to LTV. And from there, there's no chance that the same bullshit wont be covered over and over again. It drives most people away. And of late, most of the threads have been derailed in this way.

In this way, I'm basically multiplying x and y and coming up with xy. "Not interested in long threads on LTV" by "all threads are long, and about LTV" equals "bugger this crap, I'm going elsewhere."

the LTV debate is equivalent to debating if the Earth revolves around the Sun of if the Sun around the Earth.  If you accept LTV you have the exact opposite view of all those that doesn't accept LTV which is why economists still debate LTV as it is not a trivial question.

For example just take the autoworkers, all economists that subscribe to LTV laugh at the idea that the wages of autoworkers are too high, within the logic LTV it is obvious if the workers earned less the cars they produced would be worth less, as the labor that produced said cars would have less worth, since commodity value is determined by the labor value that produced it.   LTV economists point to sweatshop labor proving their point that cheaper labor equals cheaper commodities not necessarily more profits.

Non sequitur. As usual.
The fact you think it is non sequitur proves my point.

How it is non sequitur when you have two incompatible views on value and one person keeps debating value when ever value is part of the debate?  Before one can logically analyze anything to do with economics one has to first tackle the definition of value.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Medivh on July 09, 2009, 04:41:21 EDT
I tell you that your LTV bullshit isn't interesting. You blather on about how arguing over LTV is like arguing over the shape of the solar system.

The second does not follow from the first. This is the definition of "non sequitur". Literally "no sequence", but more usually translated as "it does not follow".


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Current on July 09, 2009, 07:42:07 EDT
One day I may explain why Psy is talking about the solar system.  I may then explain how that relates to this article about the wearing of Burqa's and Hegel:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/23/sarkozy-burka-french-parliament

Doing this would of course require discussion of the maturing of wine and volcanoes.

I don't think anyone would thank me for doing that though, so I won't bother.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 09, 2009, 10:16:07 EDT
I tell you that your LTV bullshit isn't interesting. You blather on about how arguing over LTV is like arguing over the shape of the solar system.

The second does not follow from the first. This is the definition of "non sequitur". Literally "no sequence", but more usually translated as "it does not follow".
It does as a prerequisite for debating anything dealing with value thus why I said the fact you think it is non sequitur proves my point.  You think that post LTV theories (like the subjective theory of value) are commonsensical axioms even though they have all failed in controlled experiments while LTV has been proved possible in controlled experiments.   Meaning LTV is not bullshit but a scientific theory that has been proved possible by scientific methods while the Subjective Theory Value hasn't (at least not yet).

Thus when debating anything to do with value bringing up LTV is brining up the best guess science has at describing value while bringing up post LTV theories is bringing up what economists believe value is.  So basically you are saying that bringing science into a debate is non squitur as you rather stick with popular unproven beliefs (which seems anti-intellectual to me)    


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 09, 2009, 10:18:04 EDT
One day I may explain why Psy is talking about the solar system.  I may then explain how that relates to this article about the wearing of Burqa's and Hegel:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/23/sarkozy-burka-french-parliament

Doing this would of course require discussion of the maturing of wine and volcanoes.

I don't think anyone would thank me for doing that though, so I won't bother.

I was using the solar system as a metaphor


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Current on July 09, 2009, 11:06:59 EDT
I was using the solar system as a metaphor

Are you not thinking about Marxist relativism, dialectic materialism etc?


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 09, 2009, 11:15:18 EDT
I was using the solar system as a metaphor

Are you not thinking about Marxist relativism, dialectic materialism etc?

Not in this case.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Current on July 09, 2009, 15:02:38 EDT
What we could do is agree not to discuss LTV when Psy brings it up.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 09, 2009, 16:20:49 EDT
What we could do is agree not to discuss LTV when Psy brings it up.


Then we are debating the conclusions of different value theories and ignoring how we got to those conclusions.  LTV points to the production of commodities as the source of value in markets while post LTV value theories point to exchange of commodities as the source of value in markets.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Current on July 10, 2009, 08:49:21 EDT
Psy, I'm fine with discussing the foundations of economics with you.

The problem is though that the enormous threads devoted to the subject annoy others.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Blue Boy from Red Country on July 10, 2009, 18:17:54 EDT
Psy, I'm fine with discussing the foundations of economics with you.

The problem is though that the enormous threads devoted to the subject annoy others.


Or completely lose us. :P


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 10, 2009, 22:12:52 EDT
Psy, I'm fine with discussing the foundations of economics with you.

The problem is though that the enormous threads devoted to the subject annoy others.


Or completely lose us. :P

Yet LTV leads one down a complete different train of thought thus totally different conclusions.  For example using LTV logic there is still no recovery in sight to this crisis as the material conditions that caused it still exists, there is still over production, wage cuts and lay-offs just amplifies the crisis as it cases under consumption since there is less capacity for the market to soak up commodities due to workers as a class having less money to buy commodities.

Meaning from a LTV perspective the best way out of this crisis is for labor to gain a significantly larger share of surplus value (meaning capitalists would have to get less) so the masses could consume more (since the masses can consume far more commodities as a class then the capitalist class) that is the exact opposite to conventional "wisdom" that thinks driving down workers ability to consume is the best solution.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: wodan46 on July 11, 2009, 02:19:14 EDT
Yet LTV leads one down a complete different train of thought thus totally different conclusions.  For example using LTV logic there is still no recovery in sight to this crisis as the material conditions that caused it still exists, there is still over production, wage cuts and lay-offs just amplifies the crisis as it cases under consumption since there is less capacity for the market to soak up commodities due to workers as a class having less money to buy commodities.
Is LTV loan to value ratio?  If so, what does what you say have to do with lending measures?
 
Meaning from a LTV perspective the best way out of this crisis is for labor to gain a significantly larger share of surplus value (meaning capitalists would have to get less)
Wouldn't that just lead to a new set of capitalists?  People are greedy bastards.  Also, honestly, spreading the money like that is problematic for economies large fiscally and literally, you do need power networks, and capitalists are a necessary evil of that network.

so the masses could consume more (since the masses can consume far more commodities as a class then the capitalist class)
That is in theory something we should be aiming for.  If the masses consume, they create demand, and they are also more likely to be productive, and thus able to meet the demand, keeping the system going.  I think we will dissagree on how to meet that.

that is the exact opposite to conventional "wisdom" that thinks driving down workers ability to consume is the best solution.
...Is that conventional wisdom?   As far as I can tell, neither the republicans nor democrats have implemented systems that would directly reduce workers ability to consume, beside the crippling of the economy, which reduces everything else as well.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Medivh on July 11, 2009, 09:02:35 EDT
Psy, I'm fine with discussing the foundations of economics with you.

The problem is though that the enormous threads devoted to the subject annoy others.


Or completely lose us. :P

Which is what I was trying to get at. But, no, I had to forget that Psy has a one-track mind. "LTV", or economics, appearing anywhere in a thread leads to immediate attempts to derail it into conversion bullshit.

Apologies. I should have known better.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 11, 2009, 10:54:35 EDT
Yet LTV leads one down a complete different train of thought thus totally different conclusions.  For example using LTV logic there is still no recovery in sight to this crisis as the material conditions that caused it still exists, there is still over production, wage cuts and lay-offs just amplifies the crisis as it cases under consumption since there is less capacity for the market to soak up commodities due to workers as a class having less money to buy commodities.
Is LTV loan to value ratio?  If so, what does what you say have to do with lending measures?
Labor Theory of Value, it is a theory that states value is created in society when labor is applied to the production of commodities therefore value of commodities is linked to labor that created linked.  What this theory means is that Wall Street doesn't generate a penny of real value just redistribute value already in the system, thus from the LTV point of view bailing Wall Street doesn't help us getting out of crisis at all since Wall Street can't generate any new value anyway since Wall Street produces no commodities thus produces no new value.

Quote from: wodan46

Meaning from a LTV perspective the best way out of this crisis is for labor to gain a significantly larger share of surplus value (meaning capitalists would have to get less)
Wouldn't that just lead to a new set of capitalists?  People are greedy bastards.  Also, honestly, spreading the money like that is problematic for economies large fiscally and literally, you do need power networks, and capitalists are a necessary evil of that network.
Capitalists are the owning class, they are capitalists because they own the means of production and would be capitalists regardless of how much their workers earn.

Quote from: wodan46

so the masses could consume more (since the masses can consume far more commodities as a class then the capitalist class)
That is in theory something we should be aiming for.  If the masses consume, they create demand, and they are also more likely to be productive, and thus able to meet the demand, keeping the system going.  I think we will dissagree on how to meet that.

that is the exact opposite to conventional "wisdom" that thinks driving down workers ability to consume is the best solution.
...Is that conventional wisdom?   As far as I can tell, neither the republicans nor democrats have implemented systems that would directly reduce workers ability to consume, beside the crippling of the economy, which reduces everything else as well.
Even Obama states workers have to sacrifice to restore the rate of profit so that in the future capitalists would be healthy.  He told GM workers they had to give concessions and in the end GM still ended up in bankruptcy allowing GM to null and void worker contracts.  Obama never even considered truly nationalizing GM in order to prevent layoffs and to pressure GM workers wages and benefits, even though GM factories could easily be retooled to make arms and equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan lowering the cost of those wars.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 11, 2009, 14:58:09 EDT
Psy, I'm fine with discussing the foundations of economics with you.

The problem is though that the enormous threads devoted to the subject annoy others.


Or completely lose us. :P

Which is what I was trying to get at. But, no, I had to forget that Psy has a one-track mind. "LTV", or economics, appearing anywhere in a thread leads to immediate attempts to derail it into conversion bullshit.

Apologies. I should have known better.

Well look at the post by wodan46 were he is unaware post LTV theories doesn't think the solution to this crisis is for workers to consume more but to restore the rate of profit through making consume less which is why Obama said workers had to sacrifice while capitalists didn't have to sacrifice anything.   Most people are totally ignorant over the long debate over how value is created in society.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: wodan46 on July 11, 2009, 21:51:28 EDT
Well look at the post by wodan46 were he is unaware post LTV theories doesn't think the solution to this crisis is for workers to consume more but to restore the rate of profit through making consume less which is why Obama said workers had to sacrifice while capitalists didn't have to sacrifice anything.   Most people are totally ignorant over the long debate over how value is created in society.
However, we would like threads that don't revolve around LTV discussions as well.  I'm willing to give the LTV discussion itself a brief shot here, mainly because I normally tune out such concepts for conserving my meager sanity.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: wodan46 on July 11, 2009, 22:29:05 EDT
Note first that I neither adhere to, nor care about, nor like, any of the broad theories offered by economists, be they capitalist/communist in bent.  As a Decision Science major, I think they are full of propagandized illogical garbage, and that a fresh approach that actually takes into account concepts such as people having emotions is necessary, rather than existing models, which insist that anything that can't be measured currently/precisely is of no relevance.  That's nonsense, and you should be focusing on figuring out how to measure it, rather than abandoning it.

I apologize for misuse of any economic jargon, I am simply using terms as a layman would.

Labor Theory of Value, it is a theory that states value is created in society when labor is applied to the production of commodities therefore value of commodities is linked to labor that created linked.
Products have an inherent utility.  The amount of labor involved in the production of a product is relevant to the price the product might have on the market.

What this theory means is that Wall Street doesn't generate a penny of real value just redistribute value already in the system
Define what you mean by Wall Street, what actions it does, and how they constitute redistribution.

The way I see it, the redistribution of things is intrinsically valuable.  The work done by middlemen and bureaucrats is valuable, and even the actions taken by the upper administrators and CEOs is valuable.  My problem is that said individuals are often given ample opportunity and freedom to redistribute said value into their pockets, whereupon they start becoming as valuable as a tapeworm. 

Despite what economists insist, the selective forces of the market encourage such tapeworms, rather than eliminating them.  As a society, we need to figure out a cure for said tapeworm proliferation, one that isn't worse than the disease.  Government interference simply leads to government tapeworms, additional power to workers results in union tapeworms.  Neither deals with the central problem:

1. Administrative positions are necessary for a system to function on a large scale.
2. Administrative positions are prone to corruption and misuse of their power without oversight.
3. The only thing that can provide oversight of an Administrative position is another Administrative position.

Best solution I can see is to pit the administrative systems against each other in a way that makes them keep each other in check, essentially a snake that eats its own tail, so to speak.

, thus from the LTV point of view bailing Wall Street doesn't help us getting out of crisis at all since Wall Street can't generate any new value anyway since Wall Street produces no commodities thus produces no new value.
I don't see how we are bailing out Wall Street anyways.  Maybe you use a different definition for Wall Street.

Capitalists are the owning class, they are capitalists because they own the means of production and would be capitalists regardless of how much their workers earn.
I think you use the term Capitalist where I use Administrator.  My point is that taking away Administrative powers away from the capitalists and giving them to the workers merely means that the workers become the new Administrators.  If a system tries to avoid having administrators, it will collapse unless someone takes on the administrative duties, except that in this case, there is no built in oversight for them.

Even Obama states workers have to sacrifice to restore the rate of profit so that in the future capitalists would be healthy.
Which is accurate, except for the last part about capitalists.  General Motors was a bloated system.  There was no way it could justify having two to three times as many employees as its foreign competitor even though it sold the same number of cars.  That is a problem regardless of whether or not the administrators have gone tapeworm.

He told GM workers they had to give concessions and in the end GM still ended up in bankruptcy allowing GM to null and void worker contracts.
That's life.  The problem existed long before that, it had mainly been concealed.

Obama never even considered truly nationalizing GM
This is because there is no way he would have been allowed to, even if he wanted to, which he doesn't because he is center right.  Instead we get this half assed partial nationalization.

in order to prevent layoffs and to pressure GM workers wages and benefits
How?

even though GM factories could easily be retooled to make arms and equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan lowering the cost of those wars.
How?

While military contracting is a big mess and a pretty good representation of that military industrial complex Ike was nervous about, nationalizing the contracting components so that they work for the government instead wouldn't help given how corrupt the government already is in those areas.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 12, 2009, 11:39:11 EDT
Note first that I neither adhere to, nor care about, nor like, any of the broad theories offered by economists, be they capitalist/communist in bent.  As a Decision Science major, I think they are full of propagandized illogical garbage, and that a fresh approach that actually takes into account concepts such as people having emotions is necessary, rather than existing models, which insist that anything that can't be measured currently/precisely is of no relevance.  That's nonsense, and you should be focusing on figuring out how to measure it, rather than abandoning it.
In LTV emotional responses are lumped in with utility (use value).

Quote from: wodan46
I apologize for misuse of any economic jargon, I am simply using terms as a layman would.

Labor Theory of Value, it is a theory that states value is created in society when labor is applied to the production of commodities therefore value of commodities is linked to labor that created linked.
Products have an inherent utility.  The amount of labor involved in the production of a product is relevant to the price the product might have on the market.
Yes and in LTV that utility is it use value.

Quote from: wodan46
What this theory means is that Wall Street doesn't generate a penny of real value just redistribute value already in the system
Define what you mean by Wall Street, what actions it does, and how they constitute redistribution.
Wall Street deals in fictional capital, pieces of paper that are claims on value that doesn't yet exist (thus fictional at that production cycle), when/if the value is created they simply distribute that value to other capitalists.

Quote from: wodan46
The way I see it, the redistribution of things is intrinsically valuable. 
But it is not creating value in the system.  For example if person A and person B trades claims on the profits of person C it doesn't create any new value.  The capitalist mode of production is M-C-C1-M1, Money is transformed into commodities that are transformed into more valuable commodities that are sold for more money, this is how value is created in capitalist societies and Wall Street doesn't partake in this mode of value creation.


Quote from: wodan46
The work done by middlemen and bureaucrats is valuable, and even the actions taken by the upper administrators and CEOs is valuable.  My problem is that said individuals are often given ample opportunity and freedom to redistribute said value into their pockets, whereupon they start becoming as valuable as a tapeworm. 
But their work does not generate new wealth thus is unproductive in society as they are nothing but a inefficiency to the capitalist goal of generating more wealth. 

Quote from: wodan46
Despite what economists insist, the selective forces of the market encourage such tapeworms, rather than eliminating them.  As a society, we need to figure out a cure for said tapeworm proliferation, one that isn't worse than the disease.  Government interference simply leads to government tapeworms, additional power to workers results in union tapeworms.  Neither deals with the central problem:

1. Administrative positions are necessary for a system to function on a large scale.
2. Administrative positions are prone to corruption and misuse of their power without oversight.
3. The only thing that can provide oversight of an Administrative position is another Administrative position.

Best solution I can see is to pit the administrative systems against each other in a way that makes them keep each other in check, essentially a snake that eats its own tail, so to speak.
All fine and well but it is beside the point that administration in itself doesn't generate value.

Quote from: wodan46
, thus from the LTV point of view bailing Wall Street doesn't help us getting out of crisis at all since Wall Street can't generate any new value anyway since Wall Street produces no commodities thus produces no new value.
I don't see how we are bailing out Wall Street anyways.  Maybe you use a different definition for Wall Street.
AIG, CitiBank,ect

Quote from: wodan46
Capitalists are the owning class, they are capitalists because they own the means of production and would be capitalists regardless of how much their workers earn.
I think you use the term Capitalist where I use Administrator.  My point is that taking away Administrative powers away from the capitalists and giving them to the workers merely means that the workers become the new Administrators.  If a system tries to avoid having administrators, it will collapse unless someone takes on the administrative duties, except that in this case, there is no built in oversight for them.
I think you misunderstand what capitalists are, they are not administrators since they hire managers to manage their holdings they are just owners they are the modern day equivalent to feudal lords that get money simply for being entitled to it with the only difference is they buy and sell claims on production.


Quote from: wodan46
Even Obama states workers have to sacrifice to restore the rate of profit so that in the future capitalists would be healthy.
Which is accurate, except for the last part about capitalists.  General Motors was a bloated system.  There was no way it could justify having two to three times as many employees as its foreign competitor even though it sold the same number of cars.  That is a problem regardless of whether or not the administrators have gone tapeworm.
General Motors was not a bloated system, it was a victim of its fixed capital.  Its foreign competitors have newer means of production that significantly reduces the labor cost of production while General Motors had huge investments in older means of production that requires more labor.

Quote from: wodan46
He told GM workers they had to give concessions and in the end GM still ended up in bankruptcy allowing GM to null and void worker contracts.
That's life.  The problem existed long before that, it had mainly been concealed.
Yet it amplifies the crisis of over production.

Quote from: wodan46
Obama never even considered truly nationalizing GM
This is because there is no way he would have been allowed to, even if he wanted to, which he doesn't because he is center right.  Instead we get this half assed partial nationalization.
Chavez did it with a far more hostile opposition.

Quote from: wodan46
in order to prevent layoffs and to pressure GM workers wages and benefits
How?
If GM is owned by the US federal state then the US government would decide on GM workers wages and benefits.

Quote from: wodan46
even though GM factories could easily be retooled to make arms and equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan lowering the cost of those wars.
How?

While military contracting is a big mess and a pretty good representation of that military industrial complex Ike was nervous about, nationalizing the contracting components so that they work for the government instead wouldn't help given how corrupt the government already is in those areas.
If the US government owns GM then it could get arms and equipment from GM at cost of production.  Meaning the cost of say 1,000,000 trucks to the government would the cost of material and labor for its GM plants to produce them as it would be in-house production.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Medivh on July 12, 2009, 12:00:06 EDT
One question before I really bow out of this crap: What use is there arguing, Psy, when you've already freely admitted that LTV is garbage? I mean, I didn't quote you admitting that LTV leans on fudge factors more than anything else for nothing.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 12, 2009, 14:39:37 EDT
One question before I really bow out of this crap: What use is there arguing, Psy, when you've already freely admitted that LTV is garbage? I mean, I didn't quote you admitting that LTV leans on fudge factors more than anything else for nothing.
LTV is not garbage, I didn't really admit that LTV leans on fudge factors.

Use value is not a fudge factor and labor value alone does not give the total value of a commodity just the exchange value or cost value. 



Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: wodan46 on July 12, 2009, 16:11:10 EDT
Quote from: Psy
In LTV emotional responses are lumped in with utility (use value).
Fair enough

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
Products have an inherent utility.  The amount of labor involved in the production of a product is relevant to the price the product might have on the market.
Yes and in LTV that utility is it use value.
Note that if no one wants the product, then it has little value, no matter how resources and labor was expended.

Quote from: Psy
Wall Street deals in fictional capital, pieces of paper that are claims on value that doesn't yet exist (thus fictional at that production cycle), when/if the value is created they simply distribute that value to other capitalists.
For clarification, when you say Wall Street, you mean the Financial Services Industry?  Here is the wikipedia definition for such:
Quote from: Wikipedia
Financial services refer to services provided by the finance industry. The finance industry encompasses a broad range of organizations that deal with the management of money. Among these organizations are banks, credit card companies, insurance companies, consumer finance companies, stock brokerages, investment funds and some government sponsored enterprises. As of 2004, the financial services industry represented 20% of the market capitalization of the S&P 500 in the United States."

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
The way I see it, the redistribution of things is intrinsically valuable. 
But it is not creating value in the system.  For example if person A and person B trades claims on the profits of person C it doesn't create any new value.  The capitalist mode of production is M-C-C1-M1, Money is transformed into commodities that are transformed into more valuable commodities that are sold for more money, this is how value is created in capitalist societies and Wall Street doesn't partake in this mode of value creation.
It creates value because it shifts resources in the system to where they are needed the most, thus promoting economic growth thus creating value.  For example, let's say I come up with the blueprint for a Fusion Powerplant, and need money to build it.  I take a loan from a bank and use it to build the Fusion Powerplant, which I use to generate energy, which is valuable, and I can thus sell it to make money, paying off the loan and interest, while still making money.  In short, by transferring the money to me, more value was created in the market.  Currency is simply an object that is recognized by all participants as having value, and thus allows value exchanges to occur without constant bartering of various objects.

However, its also possible that my Fusion Powerplant idea is impossible, that I will be unable to pay the loan, go into bankruptcy, and cause value to leave the system.

Hence, those with access to value stored in the form of currency must make decisions as to how to distribute it in order to result in the generation rather than the loss of value.  This is the goal that CEOs are SUPPOSED to have, when it comes to managing their companies resources.  The problem is that it is too easy for CEOs to siphon stored value to themselves while concealing their actions, resulting in them draining the system.

Quote from: Psy
But their work does not generate new wealth thus is unproductive in society as they are nothing but a inefficiency to the capitalist goal of generating more wealth. 
As just discussed, by their ability to turn potential value into actual value, they are useful to the system.  Also, there is the simple fact that any system you make will generate such entities anyways whether you want it to or not, so you might as well formalize and contain their position.


Quote from: Psy
All fine and well but it is beside the point that administration in itself doesn't generate value.
Other than that without the administrators, the system would either collapse or be consumed by corruption, in either case this would result in the system losing value, hence the presence of administrators results in an increase in value.

Quote from: Psy
I think you misunderstand what capitalists are, they are not administrators since they hire managers to manage their holdings they are just owners they are the modern day equivalent to feudal lords that get money simply for being entitled to it with the only difference is they buy and sell claims on production.
Those hired managers are from my perspective complicit with and of the same group as capitalists, in that they both manipulate assets.  You are correct in that they get money purely because of their position of power, this is because there exists no adequate check to prevent them from transferring assets into their own pockets, rather than transferring assets to places that result in creation of value, in which case they could be justified in taking a "finder's fee" for creating value that wouldn't have otherwise existed.

Take Warren Buffet.  He is a good example of what a "good" capitalist should be.  He moves resources to where they are needed, generates value as a result, and takes portion of that value for himself.  He wins, the people who got his loan win, and the overall economy wins.  Libertarians exist under the delusion that the market's selective forces automatically lead to Buffet types winning, hence their rosy picture of capitalism.

I believe that it is key to make it so that capitalists can only profit when the value they move generates additional value, not when they move the value to themselves while hiding negative values.

Quote from: Psy
General Motors was not a bloated system, it was a victim of its fixed capital.  Its foreign competitors have newer means of production that significantly reduces the labor cost of production while General Motors had huge investments in older means of production that requires more labor.
And that fixed capital resulted in it bloating in a desperate attempt to match the foreign competitors.


Quote from: Psy
Chavez did it with a far more hostile opposition.
Chavez is a dictator whose policies have led to economic ruin.  I don't think he's a good example to follow.


Quote from: Psy
If GM is owned by the US federal state then the US government would decide on GM workers wages and benefits.
Yet they still can't create money where there isn't any.  Ok, they do, but it results in negative value being created elsewhere and is a bad idea overall.

Quote from: Psy
If the US government owns GM then it could get arms and equipment from GM at cost of production.  Meaning the cost of say 1,000,000 trucks to the government would the cost of material and labor for its GM plants to produce them as it would be in-house production.
Though you leave out the costs for those managing the processes, and the strong likelihood that someone will likely take advantage of said managing to take some for themselves, just like the non-government system.

Also, that leaves out the more severe consequences that occur when government controls a production system.  Because they have access to even more monetary value than corporations, as well as able to define regulations as they see fit, they have the same unfair competitive powers that big corporations have, only even more so.  Historically, government ownership of the means of production has been terribly inefficient, and for reasons that have more to do with human nature than historical circumstances of the implementation.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 12, 2009, 17:16:17 EDT
It creates value because it shifts resources in the system to where they are needed the most, thus promoting economic growth thus creating value.  For example, let's say I come up with the blueprint for a Fusion Powerplant, and need money to build it.  I take a loan from a bank and use it to build the Fusion Powerplant, which I use to generate energy, which is valuable, and I can thus sell it to make money, paying off the loan and interest, while still making money.  In short, by transferring the money to me, more value was created in the market.  Currency is simply an object that is recognized by all participants as having value, and thus allows value exchanges to occur without constant bartering of various objects.

However, its also possible that my Fusion Powerplant idea is impossible, that I will be unable to pay the loan, go into bankruptcy, and cause value to leave the system.

Hence, those with access to value stored in the form of currency must make decisions as to how to distribute it in order to result in the generation rather than the loss of value.  This is the goal that CEOs are SUPPOSED to have, when it comes to managing their companies resources.  The problem is that it is too easy for CEOs to siphon stored value to themselves while concealing their actions, resulting in them draining the system.
That is like saying the fuel injection system on a engine itself is a source of energy just because it controls the fuel that enters piston chamber.  The finical sector creates no value, they only manage value that already exist in the system.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
But their work does not generate new wealth thus is unproductive in society as they are nothing but a inefficiency to the capitalist goal of generating more wealth. 
As just discussed, by their ability to turn potential value into actual value, they are useful to the system.  Also, there is the simple fact that any system you make will generate such entities anyways whether you want it to or not, so you might as well formalize and contain their position.
The goal of capitalism is to take money to buy commodities (raw materials,machinery and labor), transform those commodities into a more valuable commodity that is sold for more money.  Since the actions of a capitalists does not increase the value of the commodity under capitalism it is unproductive labor, no one will pay more for a commodity just because one capitalists owned the means of production rather then another hell most people are unaware who owns the means of production that produced the commodities they purchase.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
All fine and well but it is beside the point that administration in itself doesn't generate value.
Other than that without the administrators, the system would either collapse or be consumed by corruption, in either case this would result in the system losing value, hence the presence of administrators results in an increase in value.
That doesn't change the fact that it is a inefficiency.  Also workers have in past been able to organize production collectively.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
I think you misunderstand what capitalists are, they are not administrators since they hire managers to manage their holdings they are just owners they are the modern day equivalent to feudal lords that get money simply for being entitled to it with the only difference is they buy and sell claims on production.
Those hired managers are from my perspective complicit with and of the same group as capitalists, in that they both manipulate assets.  You are correct in that they get money purely because of their position of power, this is because there exists no adequate check to prevent them from transferring assets into their own pockets, rather than transferring assets to places that result in creation of value, in which case they could be justified in taking a "finder's fee" for creating value that wouldn't have otherwise existed.

Take Warren Buffet.  He is a good example of what a "good" capitalist should be.  He moves resources to where they are needed, generates value as a result, and takes portion of that value for himself.  He wins, the people who got his loan win, and the overall economy wins.  Libertarians exist under the delusion that the market's selective forces automatically lead to Buffet types winning, hence their rosy picture of capitalism.

I believe that it is key to make it so that capitalists can only profit when the value they move generates additional value, not when they move the value to themselves while hiding negative values.

Warren Buffet doesn't generate any value, he just manages the generation of value.  Warren Buffet does not directly buy commodities and transform them into a more valuable commodity that is sold for more then he started with.  Warren Buffet makes money through buying claims on the creation of new value.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
General Motors was not a bloated system, it was a victim of its fixed capital.  Its foreign competitors have newer means of production that significantly reduces the labor cost of production while General Motors had huge investments in older means of production that requires more labor.
And that fixed capital resulted in it bloating in a desperate attempt to match the foreign competitors.
It is not bloat, just like if China used even newer means of production to mass produce cars globally that won't make Japanese car companies bloated.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Chavez did it with a far more hostile opposition.
Chavez is a dictator whose policies have led to economic ruin.  I don't think he's a good example to follow.
Chavez was elected multiple times and rescued from a military coup by the masses taking to streets, so far from a dictator.  Also Venezeula is far from economic ruins.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
If GM is owned by the US federal state then the US government would decide on GM workers wages and benefits.
Yet they still can't create money where there isn't any.  Ok, they do, but it results in negative value being created elsewhere and is a bad idea overall.
Value is created when labor is applied to the creation of commodities, in other words the US government subsidizing GM would be the US government subsidizing value creation.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
If the US government owns GM then it could get arms and equipment from GM at cost of production.  Meaning the cost of say 1,000,000 trucks to the government would the cost of material and labor for its GM plants to produce them as it would be in-house production.
Though you leave out the costs for those managing the processes, and the strong likelihood that someone will likely take advantage of said managing to take some for themselves, just like the non-government system.
Governments effectively manage massive militarizes so the managing of production is not beyond the capacity of governments.   

Quote from: wodan46
Also, that leaves out the more severe consequences that occur when government controls a production system.  Because they have access to even more monetary value than corporations, as well as able to define regulations as they see fit, they have the same unfair competitive powers that big corporations have, only even more so.  Historically, government ownership of the means of production has been terribly inefficient, and for reasons that have more to do with human nature than historical circumstances of the implementation.
The U.S.S.R disproves that.  A backward semi-industrial backwater ravished by wars rapidly industrialized even with crippling corruption and bureaucracy.  Shortages in consumer goods was caused by the military taking up most of the U.S.S.R's productive capacity, meaning it was not a problem with planning failing to deliver what planners wanted but planners not putting significant effort in consumer goods.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: wodan46 on July 12, 2009, 18:44:54 EDT
Quote from: Psy
That is like saying the fuel injection system on a engine itself is a source of energy just because it controls the fuel that enters piston chamber.  The finical sector creates no value, they only manage value that already exist in the system.
Except that value would not have existed if they had not been managing.  Their managing is directly responsible for the introduction of genuine new value into the system where there wasn't before.

Quote from: Psy
The goal of capitalism is to take money to buy commodities (raw materials,machinery and labor), transform those commodities into a more valuable commodity that is sold for more money.  Since the actions of a capitalists does not increase the value of the commodity under capitalism it is unproductive labor, no one will pay more for a commodity just because one capitalists owned the means of production rather then another hell most people are unaware who owns the means of production that produced the commodities they purchase.
People are not interested in purchasing raw rubber, nails, labor, and factories.  They are interested in buying cars.  In short, the materials, while separate, are of little value, it is only when there is an entity masterminding their combination that it gains value.  That managing entity labors to create value.  He is entitled to his share of the profit, because if he was not there, that profit would not have been possible in the first place.  If you attempt to shift managerial duties onto the worker, that will result in there being less capacity for oversight of the managing, while also putting additional labor on the worker, a recipe for disaster.


Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
Other than that without the administrators, the system would either collapse or be consumed by corruption, in either case this would result in the system losing value, hence the presence of administrators results in an increase in value.
That doesn't change the fact that it is a inefficiency.
Production without Management=low value
Production with Management=high value
Management=high value-low value=some value

How precisely is that inefficient?  It only become inefficient when the manager is given the freedom to rob the system for all its worth, when that option is denied, they directly contribute to the system's value.

Quote from: Psy
Also workers have in past been able to organize production collectively.
That is blatantly false.  Your favorite example, the Spanish Revolutionaries, I read the book on, written by someone who liked the system, admitted that the system was still doomed.  It survived by looting the remnants of the previous system and the momentary goodwill that exists during a revolutionary period, and even then, it was only able to survive, it was atrociously inefficient, and its shortages directly resulted in it being overpowered by the Soviet faction, which received economic support from the outside.  Both groups ultimately lost to Franco anyways.

Quote from: Psy
Warren Buffet doesn't generate any value, he just manages the generation of value.  Warren Buffet does not directly buy commodities and transform them into a more valuable commodity that is sold for more then he started with.  Warren Buffet makes money through buying claims on the creation of new value.
Warren Buffet's management of value generation directly leads to that value generation being substantially higher, so yes he does generate value.

Quote from: Psy
It is not bloat, just like if China used even newer means of production to mass produce cars globally that won't make Japanese car companies bloated.
The bloating was in response to the fixed means of production.


Quote from: Psy
Chavez was elected multiple times and rescued from a military coup by the masses taking to streets, so far from a dictator.  Also Venezeula is far from economic ruins.
I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but Hitler was also elected by his people, that didn't make him any less of a dictator.  Chavez still behaves as if he is above the constitution.

Quote from: Wikipedia
Some social scientists and economists claim that the government's reported poverty figures have not fallen in proportion to the country's vast petroleum revenues in the last two years.[15] The president of Datos said that, although his surveys showed rising incomes because of subsidies and grants, the number of people in the worst living conditions has grown. "The poor of Venezuela are living much better lately and have increased their purchasing power... [but] without being able to improve their housing, education level, and social mobility," he said. "Rather than help [the poor] become stakeholders in the economic system, what [the government has] done is distribute as much oil wealth as possible in missions and social programs."[24]
This is among other indicators that Chavez's policies have not helped as much as they should have.

Quote from: Psy
Value is created when labor is applied to the creation of commodities, in other words the US government subsidizing GM would be the US government subsidizing value creation.
How does that have anything to do with the government financing worker wages with money that the government doesn't actually have?  Whether or not the workers are able to produce value is irrelevant to whether or not the US government has the money to pay for their labor.  It will take some time before the actual money generated by that labor exceeds the money required in wages/materials anyways, so until then, GM is a sinkhole for value.

Quote from: Psy
Governments effectively manage massive militarizes so the managing of production is not beyond the capacity of governments.
How does that have anything to do with the massive potential for corruption and other abuses of power within such a system?  Also, a military system is fundamentally different from a production system, so your comparison is meaningless anyways.
   
Quote from: Psy
The U.S.S.R disproves that.  A backward semi-industrial backwater ravished by wars rapidly industrialized even with crippling corruption and bureaucracy.  Shortages in consumer goods was caused by the military taking up most of the U.S.S.R's productive capacity, meaning it was not a problem with planning failing to deliver what planners wanted but planners not putting significant effort in consumer goods.
Their system involved working millions of people to death in labor camps, then stealing their belongings and holdings.  It also involved other people being "willing" to tolerate atrocious conditions (its either that or be the first group of people).  The USSR started experiencing real growth after it first abandoned communism, then had the oligarchs be disposed of by Putin.  All this in a country that had over a 100 million people and plenty of natural resources.

I do agree that the huge military buildup pretty much meant the cold war russian economy was doomed regardless.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 12, 2009, 20:11:16 EDT
Quote from: Psy
That is like saying the fuel injection system on a engine itself is a source of energy just because it controls the fuel that enters piston chamber.  The finical sector creates no value, they only manage value that already exist in the system.
Except that value would not have existed if they had not been managing.  Their managing is directly responsible for the introduction of genuine new value into the system where there wasn't before.
Doesn't matter when talking about efficiency in science, anything that draws on the energy source is a inefficiency even if it overall increases efficiency.  For example computer controls a train is a inefficiency even though the computer allows the train to move far more efficiency by managing speed better it is technically a inefficiency as it draws electricity and not directly involved in transferring that electricity into forward momentum, the computer simply manages the process of turning electricity into forward momentum. 

So using scientific terms that means capitalists are also inefficiencies, capitalists consume value yet not directly involved in the the production of value.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
The goal of capitalism is to take money to buy commodities (raw materials,machinery and labor), transform those commodities into a more valuable commodity that is sold for more money.  Since the actions of a capitalists does not increase the value of the commodity under capitalism it is unproductive labor, no one will pay more for a commodity just because one capitalists owned the means of production rather then another hell most people are unaware who owns the means of production that produced the commodities they purchase.
People are not interested in purchasing raw rubber, nails, labor, and factories.  They are interested in buying cars.  In short, the materials, while separate, are of little value, it is only when there is an entity masterminding their combination that it gains value.  That managing entity labors to create value.  He is entitled to his share of the profit, because if he was not there, that profit would not have been possible in the first place.  If you attempt to shift managerial duties onto the worker, that will result in there being less capacity for oversight of the managing, while also putting additional labor on the worker, a recipe for disaster.

If that was the case primitive societies could never produce value yet they did so self coordinated production still produces value.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
Other than that without the administrators, the system would either collapse or be consumed by corruption, in either case this would result in the system losing value, hence the presence of administrators results in an increase in value.
That doesn't change the fact that it is a inefficiency.
Production without Management=low value
Production with Management=high value
Management=high value-low value=some value

How precisely is that inefficient?  It only become inefficient when the manager is given the freedom to rob the system for all its worth, when that option is denied, they directly contribute to the system's value.
See above.  It is a inefficiency because it consumes value without directly producing new value.  For example if a worker works harder that would result in the creation of more value even if the worker was unsupervised.  Playing golf far from the production process is far from useful in producing utility and in large centralized means of production workers regularly manage production by themselves without realizing it, when something goes wrong the capitalists is the last to know (even in disasters like train crashes) workers communicate to the other workers within the organization to organize a emergency response before the capitalists even get involved.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Also workers have in past been able to organize production collectively.
That is blatantly false.  Your favorite example, the Spanish Revolutionaries, I read the book on, written by someone who liked the system, admitted that the system was still doomed.  It survived by looting the remnants of the previous system and the momentary goodwill that exists during a revolutionary period, and even then, it was only able to survive, it was atrociously inefficient, and its shortages directly resulted in it being overpowered by the Soviet faction, which received economic support from the outside.  Both groups ultimately lost to Franco anyways.
How many capitalists factories are efficiency when faced with battles all along its supply lines?

Also you have self organized production in Paris May 1968, Argentina 2001 and in the last case the self organized factories were so efficient capitalists came back to claim their abandoned factories now that they were successful due to the workers managing production. 


Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Warren Buffet doesn't generate any value, he just manages the generation of value.  Warren Buffet does not directly buy commodities and transform them into a more valuable commodity that is sold for more then he started with.  Warren Buffet makes money through buying claims on the creation of new value.
Warren Buffet's management of value generation directly leads to that value generation being substantially higher, so yes he does generate value.
How is Warren Buffet better at managing production then workers on site that actually know what is going on?

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
It is not bloat, just like if China used even newer means of production to mass produce cars globally that won't make Japanese car companies bloated.
The bloating was in response to the fixed means of production.
All capitalists have fixed capital, when you invest in machinery you are stuck with that machinery till they pay for themselves.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Chavez was elected multiple times and rescued from a military coup by the masses taking to streets, so far from a dictator.  Also Venezeula is far from economic ruins.
I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but Hitler was also elected by his people, that didn't make him any less of a dictator.  Chavez still behaves as if he is above the constitution.
Chavez went with referendums when it came to alerting the constitution/

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Wikipedia
Some social scientists and economists claim that the government's reported poverty figures have not fallen in proportion to the country's vast petroleum revenues in the last two years.[15] The president of Datos said that, although his surveys showed rising incomes because of subsidies and grants, the number of people in the worst living conditions has grown. "The poor of Venezuela are living much better lately and have increased their purchasing power... [but] without being able to improve their housing, education level, and social mobility," he said. "Rather than help [the poor] become stakeholders in the economic system, what [the government has] done is distribute as much oil wealth as possible in missions and social programs."[24]
This is among other indicators that Chavez's policies have not helped as much as they should have.
True but Chavez does have limits to his powers and his policies have helped greatly compared prior to them. 

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Value is created when labor is applied to the creation of commodities, in other words the US government subsidizing GM would be the US government subsidizing value creation.
How does that have anything to do with the government financing worker wages with money that the government doesn't actually have?  Whether or not the workers are able to produce value is irrelevant to whether or not the US government has the money to pay for their labor.  It will take some time before the actual money generated by that labor exceeds the money required in wages/materials anyways, so until then, GM is a sinkhole for value.
Since GM workers can produce value then of course it is possible to pay them with the value they produce.  At any rate would be far more productive then supporting the workers rate of consumption through unemployment and welfare.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Governments effectively manage massive militarizes so the managing of production is not beyond the capacity of governments.
How does that have anything to do with the massive potential for corruption and other abuses of power within such a system? 
Governments are not automatically corrupt.

Quote from: wodan46
Also, a military system is fundamentally different from a production system, so your comparison is meaningless anyways.
How is the army building a bridge different then a private company building a bridge? 
 

Quote from: wodan46
 
Quote from: Psy
The U.S.S.R disproves that.  A backward semi-industrial backwater ravished by wars rapidly industrialized even with crippling corruption and bureaucracy.  Shortages in consumer goods was caused by the military taking up most of the U.S.S.R's productive capacity, meaning it was not a problem with planning failing to deliver what planners wanted but planners not putting significant effort in consumer goods.
Their system involved working millions of people to death in labor camps, then stealing their belongings and holdings.  It also involved other people being "willing" to tolerate atrocious conditions (its either that or be the first group of people).
And that is different the early capitalism how?  Also that was only true for Stalinist Russia, afterwords Russia had matured into modern industrial power and had similar working conditions as other emerging economies. 

Quote from: wodan46

  The USSR started experiencing real growth after it first abandoned communism, then had the oligarchs be disposed of by Putin.  All this in a country that had over a 100 million people and plenty of natural resources.
So the contraction of Russia GDP is real growth? 


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: wodan46 on July 12, 2009, 21:07:48 EDT
Quote from: Psy
Doesn't matter when talking about efficiency in science, anything that draws on the energy source is a inefficiency even if it overall increases efficiency....So using scientific terms that means capitalists are also inefficiencies, capitalists consume value yet not directly involved in the the production of value.
Now you are just arguing semantics.  The worker requires money and food, does that mean they are inefficient?  If the manager adds to the productivity of system, they add value, end of story.


Quote from: Psy
If that was the case primitive societies could never produce value yet they did so self coordinated production still produces value.
Primitive societies also had a life expectancy of 20 years, were incapable of functioning with more than a couple dozen people without adding management levels, and tended to be incredibly inefficient.  They produced value yes, but they produced very little per person compared to modern society, and modern society is utterly dependent on massive country wide systems, all of which require heavy management in order to function.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
Production without Management=low value
Production with Management=high value
Management=high value-low value=some value
See above.  It is a inefficiency because it consumes value without directly producing new value.
Except that it directly produces value.  I clearly stated that numerous times.  You've made no effort to refute such.

Quote from: Psy
For example if a worker works harder that would result in the creation of more value even if the worker was unsupervised.
So?

Quote from: Psy
in large centralized means of production workers regularly manage production by themselves without realizing it, when something goes wrong the capitalists is the last to know (even in disasters like train crashes) workers communicate to the other workers within the organization to organize a emergency response before the capitalists even get involved.
You are using a narrow definition of capitalism now.  While the people at the top don't get involved, the bureaucrats, the middlemen, the managers, and the administrators do get involved.  The CEO's job is usually focused on picking the right people for those jobs, and other high level processes.

Its like saying that the president is useless because he doesn't enforce or even write the laws.  But he is responsible for the coordination of the people who do, or perhaps the coordination of the coordinators.

Quote from: Psy
How many capitalists factories are efficiency when faced with battles all along its supply lines?
False.  They had complete control of those areas, it was nowhere near the front lines, and they still had no efficiency.

Quote from: Psy
Also you have self organized production in Paris May 1968, Argentina 2001 and in the last case the self organized factories were so efficient capitalists came back to claim their abandoned factories now that they were successful due to the workers managing production. 
Give me proof.  Most groups like that turn out to be weaker than they look when investigated historically after the propaganda wars die down.  Moreover, they still represent small scale operations.  A 100 person operation needs less layers of management than a 10000 person operation.  They are also using existing facilities.  Operating a factory, yes.  But could they build a factory, or decide where and when such should be built?

Quote from: Psy
How is Warren Buffet better at managing production then workers on site that actually know what is going on?
Warren Buffet has nothing to do with that.  I don't think you understand what Buffet does.

Let's say there are 3 Ventures, Venture A, Venture B, and Venture C.  All of them claim that if you give them the money they need to purchase materials and pay workers, they will be able to turn a profit, and eventually become self sufficient, paying back the loan with interest.  Investing in A or C will result in a failed venture and loss of money.  Only Venture B will genuinely produce value greater than the initial loan, and become self sufficient.

Warren Buffet is the person responsible for figuring out that Venture B is the good one and investing in it.  If it were someone less competent than Buffet, you would end up wasting a ton of resources on bad ventures.  If you had no one in his position at all, the ventures would never get off the ground resulting in no losses or gains.  It is only with Warren Buffet that you can get the good ventures going, and generate value.


Quote from: Psy
All capitalists have fixed capital, when you invest in machinery you are stuck with that machinery till they pay for themselves.
And this is different from what the workers are stuck with how?  They would have to invest in machinery as well if they wished for anything.

Quote from: Psy
Chavez went with referendums when it came to alerting the constitution/
Same difference.

Quote from: Psy
True but Chavez does have limits to his powers and his policies have helped greatly compared prior to them.
But were his the best?  Honestly, with all that oil, it was pretty likely that his country would be improving regardless of leader.  Unless it was Bush or something.

Quote from: Psy
Since GM workers can produce value then of course it is possible to pay them with the value they produce.
Except that the value they produce is less than the value you need to pay them with.

Quote from: Psy
At any rate would be far more productive then supporting the workers rate of consumption through unemployment and welfare.
But not as productive as having them find a new job where they can turn a net profit.

Quote from: Psy
Governments are not automatically corrupt.
They are when you give them large amounts of resources to shift around with insufficient oversight.  You propose giving them the resources to shift.  Thanks to the "who watches the watchmen" paradox, there will always be insufficient oversight for such a nest egg.

Quote from: Psy
How is the army building a bridge different then a private company building a bridge?
A huge difference.  Tell me, do you think that a military trial is going to be anything like a civilian trial?

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
 
Their system involved working millions of people to death in labor camps, then stealing their belongings and holdings.  It also involved other people being "willing" to tolerate atrocious conditions (its either that or be the first group of people).
And that is different the early capitalism how?
It occurred after capitalism had eliminated such things.

Quote from: Psy
Also that was only true for Stalinist Russia, afterwords Russia had matured into modern industrial power and had similar working conditions as other emerging economies.
You mean after it became moderate and adopted western economic policies.

Quote from: Psy
So the contraction of Russia GDP is real growth? 
Read:
http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=Business&articleid=a1187177738


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 12, 2009, 22:51:19 EDT
Quote from: Psy
Doesn't matter when talking about efficiency in science, anything that draws on the energy source is a inefficiency even if it overall increases efficiency....So using scientific terms that means capitalists are also inefficiencies, capitalists consume value yet not directly involved in the the production of value.
Now you are just arguing semantics.  The worker requires money and food, does that mean they are inefficient?  If the manager adds to the productivity of system, they add value, end of story.
100% efficiency would be 100% of the value going into value production coming out as value.  Since LTV states labor value translates over to exchange value it means the more workers consume (staying with what is socially acceptable) the more valuable the commodity.


Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
If that was the case primitive societies could never produce value yet they did so self coordinated production still produces value.
Primitive societies also had a life expectancy of 20 years, were incapable of functioning with more than a couple dozen people without adding management levels, and tended to be incredibly inefficient.  They produced value yes, but they produced very little per person compared to modern society, and modern society is utterly dependent on massive country wide systems, all of which require heavy management in order to function.
Mostly due to limitations of technology rather then organization.


Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
Production without Management=low value
Production with Management=high value
Management=high value-low value=some value
See above.  It is a inefficiency because it consumes value without directly producing new value.
Except that it directly produces value.  I clearly stated that numerous times.  You've made no effort to refute such.
See above

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
For example if a worker works harder that would result in the creation of more value even if the worker was unsupervised.
So?
So capitalists are not involved in generating new value.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
in large centralized means of production workers regularly manage production by themselves without realizing it, when something goes wrong the capitalists is the last to know (even in disasters like train crashes) workers communicate to the other workers within the organization to organize a emergency response before the capitalists even get involved.
You are using a narrow definition of capitalism now.  While the people at the top don't get involved, the bureaucrats, the middlemen, the managers, and the administrators do get involved.  The CEO's job is usually focused on picking the right people for those jobs, and other high level processes.

Its like saying that the president is useless because he doesn't enforce or even write the laws.  But he is responsible for the coordination of the people who do, or perhaps the coordination of the coordinators.
We are talking about relations to production which have clear class divisions.


Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
How many capitalists factories are efficiency when faced with battles all along its supply lines?
False.  They had complete control of those areas, it was nowhere near the front lines, and they still had no efficiency.
Really? You think raw materials and their shipment were unaffected by fighting?


Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Also you have self organized production in Paris May 1968, Argentina 2001 and in the last case the self organized factories were so efficient capitalists came back to claim their abandoned factories now that they were successful due to the workers managing production. 
Give me proof.  Most groups like that turn out to be weaker than they look when investigated historically after the propaganda wars die down.  Moreover, they still represent small scale operations.  A 100 person operation needs less layers of management than a 10000 person operation.  They are also using existing facilities.  Operating a factory, yes.  But could they build a factory, or decide where and when such should be built?
The U.S.S.R built new factories, sure it didn't give workers a say but my point is that it is possible for new means of production to be built without capitalists.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
How is Warren Buffet better at managing production then workers on site that actually know what is going on?
Warren Buffet has nothing to do with that.  I don't think you understand what Buffet does.

Let's say there are 3 Ventures, Venture A, Venture B, and Venture C.  All of them claim that if you give them the money they need to purchase materials and pay workers, they will be able to turn a profit, and eventually become self sufficient, paying back the loan with interest.  Investing in A or C will result in a failed venture and loss of money.  Only Venture B will genuinely produce value greater than the initial loan, and become self sufficient.

Warren Buffet is the person responsible for figuring out that Venture B is the good one and investing in it.  If it were someone less competent than Buffet, you would end up wasting a ton of resources on bad ventures.  If you had no one in his position at all, the ventures would never get off the ground resulting in no losses or gains.  It is only with Warren Buffet that you can get the good ventures going, and generate value.
But you already have greater inefficiency since you have Venture A, B and C all producing without coordinating their efforts infact they try to undermined each other efforts.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
All capitalists have fixed capital, when you invest in machinery you are stuck with that machinery till they pay for themselves.
And this is different from what the workers are stuck with how?  They would have to invest in machinery as well if they wished for anything.
You miss the point, it is not GM's fault it is less competitive then its foreign competitors as its competitors simply entered the business later thus have more advanced machinery as they bought them later then GM they also had huge subsidies from the Japanese state to get their machinery.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Chavez went with referendums when it came to alerting the constitution/
Same difference.
No as it was asking the people "hey do you like these changes to the constitution" then when they said no Chavez went back to the drawing board so to speak.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
True but Chavez does have limits to his powers and his policies have helped greatly compared prior to them.
But were his the best?  Honestly, with all that oil, it was pretty likely that his country would be improving regardless of leader.  Unless it was Bush or something.
It wasn't improving prior to Chavez.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Since GM workers can produce value then of course it is possible to pay them with the value they produce.
Except that the value they produce is less than the value you need to pay them with.
Not really, at least not if you go by LTV.  If you go by LTV then the problem is a lack of surplus value generated not a lack of value.  Workers always generate enough value to pay their labor value since exchange value is determined on that, what lacks is surplus value to pay those not involved in commodity production and a problem of lack of demand for the utility produce.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
At any rate would be far more productive then supporting the workers rate of consumption through unemployment and welfare.
But not as productive as having them find a new job where they can turn a net profit.
What new job?  There is no new jobs waiting for them that allow them the same level of consumption.


Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Governments are not automatically corrupt.
They are when you give them large amounts of resources to shift around with insufficient oversight.  You propose giving them the resources to shift.  Thanks to the "who watches the watchmen" paradox, there will always be insufficient oversight for such a nest egg.
And how would capitalists be any different?


Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
How is the army building a bridge different then a private company building a bridge?
A huge difference.  Tell me, do you think that a military trial is going to be anything like a civilian trial?
Why would a trial be involved with building a bridge?  We are talking about production here. 

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
 
Their system involved working millions of people to death in labor camps, then stealing their belongings and holdings.  It also involved other people being "willing" to tolerate atrocious conditions (its either that or be the first group of people).
And that is different the early capitalism how?
It occurred after capitalism had eliminated such things.
Russia was a backwater at the time, it didn't go through that stage of capitalism yet.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Also that was only true for Stalinist Russia, afterwords Russia had matured into modern industrial power and had similar working conditions as other emerging economies.
You mean after it became moderate and adopted western economic policies.
I mean after Stalin died.


Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
So the contraction of Russia GDP is real growth? 
Read:
http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=Business&articleid=a1187177738

That ignores the contractions from the breakup of the U.S.S.R.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Current on July 13, 2009, 10:21:04 EDT
I could reply on this, but does anyone except Psy really care.  I've dealt with most of Psy's fallacies in previous posts.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 13, 2009, 13:40:12 EDT
I could reply on this, but does anyone except Psy really care.  I've dealt with most of Psy's fallacies in previous posts.

Well this is why I keep going back to LTV as it becomes clear that the problem is the lack of understanding of how value is created in society.  That it is impossible for capitalists to generate value unless they physically partake in producing commodities, managing production in itself does not create value nor does selling commodities (selling commodities is simply transferring value from one form (commodities) to capital in another (money)).  

LTV economists also view Russia as more improvised now then in 1980's since more Russians were working during the 1980's and consumed far more (and there was more Russians since the mortality rate was much lower, Russia's population declined around 5 million since the collapse of the U.S.S.R) while other economists view as more prosperous since Russia has a higher rate of profit.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: wodan46 on July 13, 2009, 15:12:00 EDT
Quote from: Psy
100% efficiency would be 100% of the value going into value production coming out as value.  Since LTV states labor value translates over to exchange value it means the more workers consume (staying with what is socially acceptable) the more valuable the commodity.
Your argument is circular.  You use LTV being true as the primary proof that LTV is true.

Quote from: Psy
Mostly due to limitations of technology rather then organization.
And how did they implement technological and societal advancement?

Quote from: Psy
So capitalists are not involved in generating new value.
You have not proven this.  I have repeatedly demonstrated why it is false, and you have offered no counter argument other than dancing in semantic circles.

Quote from: Psy
We are talking about relations to production which have clear class divisions.
Semantic circle.  You define everything to meet your perspective.

Quote from: Psy
Really? You think raw materials and their shipment were unaffected by fighting?
Seeing as they were nowhere near the fight, yes, they were unaffected. 

Quote from: Psy
The U.S.S.R built new factories, sure it didn't give workers a say but my point is that it is possible for new means of production to be built without capitalists.
The USSR system was dominated by capitalists.  Also, you don't want to be using USSR as an example of a system to move towards.

Quote from: Psy
But you already have greater inefficiency since you have Venture A, B and C all producing without coordinating their efforts infact they try to undermined each other efforts.
So you agree with me then?  Because Warren Buffet eliminates that inefficiency.  That was my whole point.

Quote from: Psy
You miss the point, it is not GM's fault it is less competitive then its foreign competitors as its competitors simply entered the business later thus have more advanced machinery as they bought them later then GM they also had huge subsidies from the Japanese state to get their machinery.
And how does that have anything to do with what we were just talking about?  Stop dodging, stop running in circles, stop wasting my time.

Quote from: Psy
No as it was asking the people "hey do you like these changes to the constitution" then when they said no Chavez went back to the drawing board so to speak.
He still was undermining the constitution.

Quote from: Psy
It wasn't improving prior to Chavez.
And there wasn't the degree of oil before Chavez.  Nor has Chavez really improved things that much.


Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
Except that the value they produce is less than the value you need to pay them with.
LTV blah blah blah
None of that changes what I said.  Supply exceeds demand, hence products are either cheaper than normal or not bought at all, hence the value put in does not match the value put out.  The only way to fix this is to decrease supply, and if you decrease supply, that is going to involve firing workers, because they aren't needed anymore.

Quote from: Psy
What new job?  There is no new jobs waiting for them that allow them the same level of consumption.
Then make them.

Quote from: Psy
And how would capitalists be any different?
They aren't elected.  Elected officials can exert oversight over others, but the public also has limited oversight over them.  Handing over production systems to them would redouble their motivation to corrupt, while ruining the public's ability to exert oversight over them.  Keeping the elected officials and managers of the economy separate allows the former to exert some oversight over the latter.

Quote from: Psy
Why would a trial be involved with building a bridge?  We are talking about production here.
No we were talking about the differences between military and civil systems.  I was showing how military and civil systems are inherently different, and that when you analyze those differences, it becomes clear that the military would handle production differently than the civil, and not in a good way.

Quote from: Psy
Russia was a backwater at the time, it didn't go through that stage of capitalism yet.
Irrelevant.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
You mean after it became moderate and adopted western economic policies.
I mean after Stalin died.
Same difference.

Quote from: Psy
That ignores the contractions from the breakup of the U.S.S.R.
No contractions occurred.  It was simply revealed the prior growth had been illusory.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: wodan46 on July 13, 2009, 15:14:40 EDT
managing production in itself does not create value
False

nor does selling commodities (selling commodities is simply transferring value from one form (commodities) to capital in another (money)).
False


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 13, 2009, 19:08:16 EDT
Quote from: Psy
100% efficiency would be 100% of the value going into value production coming out as value.  Since LTV states labor value translates over to exchange value it means the more workers consume (staying with what is socially acceptable) the more valuable the commodity.
Your argument is circular.  You use LTV being true as the primary proof that LTV is true.
LTV has been proven possible in controlled experiments while its alternatives have failed for example Reinhard Sippel experiments in 1995 that disproved modern micro-economic theory by showing the average human doesn't value commodities as modern micro-economic theory theorizes.   Also LTV is also the best theory to explain how other animals create value, for trying to say you can use Marginalism to explain how wolves generate value for this pack is laughable but zoologist do use value theories based on LTV to explain how animals generate value.

Then you have the fact that LTV satisfies Occam's razor, the other value theories are overly complex, so complex scientists are not sure humans are even are mentally capable of valuing on the margins, since it would take 2^1000 calculations for a animal to value on the margins between only 1,000 goods, the average brain would take 10^200 seconds to process the value of 1,000 goods if marginal theory was true. 

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Mostly due to limitations of technology rather then organization.
And how did they implement technological and societal advancement?
Fairly well since we those socialites moved to agricultural and it was only when their technological advances allowed surplus value that hierarchal societies were created.  For example the domestication of animals was quickly adopted once these primitives societies had the knowledge of how to domesticate animals.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
So capitalists are not involved in generating new value.
You have not proven this.  I have repeatedly demonstrated why it is false, and you have offered no counter argument other than dancing in semantic circles.
Because value comes from the application of labor to the creation of utility/commodities, managing the process is not creating value, that is like saying a talent agent creates talent rather then simply manage talent.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
We are talking about relations to production which have clear class divisions.
Semantic circle.  You define everything to meet your perspective.
It is the normal definition of class.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Really? You think raw materials and their shipment were unaffected by fighting?
Seeing as they were nowhere near the fight, yes, they were unaffected. 
The fighting was in the same nation, meaning workers joined armies (this is being effected by fighting) and you seem to forget fighting spread right into the streets Madrid with Stalinists opening fire on Trots and Anarchists.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
The U.S.S.R built new factories, sure it didn't give workers a say but my point is that it is possible for new means of production to be built without capitalists.
The USSR system was dominated by capitalists.  Also, you don't want to be using USSR as an example of a system to move towards.
It is a example of a planned economy being able to create new means of production and technology.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
But you already have greater inefficiency since you have Venture A, B and C all producing without coordinating their efforts infact they try to undermined each other efforts.
So you agree with me then?  Because Warren Buffet eliminates that inefficiency.  That was my whole point.
No, because Warren Buffet still takes away value thus still a inefficiency.  You can argue that Warren Buffet saves value from being wasted but not that Warren Buffet creates value.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
You miss the point, it is not GM's fault it is less competitive then its foreign competitors as its competitors simply entered the business later thus have more advanced machinery as they bought them later then GM they also had huge subsidies from the Japanese state to get their machinery.
And how does that have anything to do with what we were just talking about?  Stop dodging, stop running in circles, stop wasting my time.
The point is it is not bloat, it is just that GM's foreign competitors devalued GM's commodities through lowering the labor value required, thus less exchange value is produced per car.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
No as it was asking the people "hey do you like these changes to the constitution" then when they said no Chavez went back to the drawing board so to speak.
He still was undermining the constitution.
No, he tried to change the constitution within the powers the constitution provided him.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
It wasn't improving prior to Chavez.
And there wasn't the degree of oil before Chavez.  Nor has Chavez really improved things that much.
Actually there was the same degree of oil before Chavez, it was just the state owned oil company was corrupt.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
Except that the value they produce is less than the value you need to pay them with.
LTV blah blah blah
None of that changes what I said.  Supply exceeds demand, hence products are either cheaper than normal or not bought at all, hence the value put in does not match the value put out.  The only way to fix this is to decrease supply, and if you decrease supply, that is going to involve firing workers, because they aren't needed anymore.
But if you fire workers you decrease demand thus you stuck with a crisis of under consumption and over production.  Also utility doesn't decrease if the US uses those factories to produce say trucks for the army as the stockpile increased the utility of each truck wouldn't decrease.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
What new job?  There is no new jobs waiting for them that allow them the same level of consumption.
Then make them.
With what means of production?

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
And how would capitalists be any different?
They aren't elected.  Elected officials can exert oversight over others, but the public also has limited oversight over them.  Handing over production systems to them would redouble their motivation to corrupt, while ruining the public's ability to exert oversight over them.  Keeping the elected officials and managers of the economy separate allows the former to exert some oversight over the latter.
But if elected officials are corrupt having private companies manage production would not stop said corruption if capitalists also are corrupt.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Why would a trial be involved with building a bridge?  We are talking about production here.
No we were talking about the differences between military and civil systems.  I was showing how military and civil systems are inherently different, and that when you analyze those differences, it becomes clear that the military would handle production differently than the civil, and not in a good way.
What does how the military deals with law enforcement have to do with how militarizes deal with production?

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Russia was a backwater at the time, it didn't go through that stage of capitalism yet.
Irrelevant.
So because Russia was late to industrialize they are more evil for industrializing exactly like how that everyone came before them did?   Also the USA and Germany was machine gunning strikers at the time so it is not like the capitalists world totally evolved beyond the barbarism Russia adopted. 

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
You mean after it became moderate and adopted western economic policies.
I mean after Stalin died.
Same difference.
Nope, after Stalin Russia left its phase of primitive accumulation like capitalists nations (for example the US committed every single atrocity Stalin did during the US's phase of primitive accumulation).  After Stalin Russia become more like developing nations, this why labor uprisings sprung up across the U.S.S.R and its client states.


Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
That ignores the contractions from the breakup of the U.S.S.R.
No contractions occurred.  It was simply revealed the prior growth had been illusory.
So all the factories were illusory, as where all the jobs and levels of consumption?  Lets not forget the much lower mortality rate.

The prosperity of the U.S.S.R was not illusory, it supported 5 million more Russians at a higher standard of living then Russia today, all the breakup of Russia did was kill off 5 million Russians and allowed a tiny minority to get super rich while the rest of Russia dies of poverty.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: wodan46 on July 14, 2009, 00:24:01 EDT
Quote from: Psy
LTV has been proven possible in controlled experiments while its alternatives have failed for example Reinhard Sippel experiments in 1995 that disproved modern micro-economic theory by showing the average human doesn't value commodities as modern micro-economic theory theorizes.   Also LTV is also the best theory to explain how other animals create value, for trying to say you can use Marginalism to explain how wolves generate value for this pack is laughable but zoologist do use value theories based on LTV to explain how animals generate value.
I would like to see those controlled experiments.  If LTV is so compelling, why can't you offer a simple and logical explanation of it that makes any sense?

Quote from: Psy
Then you have the fact that LTV satisfies Occam's razor, the other value theories are overly complex, so complex scientists are not sure humans are even are mentally capable of valuing on the margins, since it would take 2^1000 calculations for a animal to value on the margins between only 1,000 goods, the average brain would take 10^200 seconds to process the value of 1,000 goods if marginal theory was true.
You are now using strawman.  You are taking an extreme version of an already bad theory and offering it as the only possible explanation.  I'm not a supporter of so called "rational" economic theory, don't portray me as being such.

Decision science discusses precisely how people can't value 1,000 goods so they take shortcuts.  Much of decision science is discussing the benefits and costs of such shortcuts to decision making.

Quote from: Psy
Because value comes from the application of labor to the creation of utility/commodities, managing the process is not creating value, that is like saying a talent agent creates talent rather then simply manage talent.
Let's say at one factory, people are able to make a shirt with 2 hours of labor.  At another factory, someone comes up with a method to make shirts in 1 hour of labor, and shares this with the workers.  Those workers are now able to produce twice as much as they would without the idea.  According to you, that inventor deserves no credit for anything because he doesn't spend any time making commodities, even though he directly enabled the production of said commodities.  It probably also took him many hours of labor to come up with method.

You don't seem to recognize that coordination and ingenuity often result in massive increases in productivity, and thus are indirect producers of value. 

You also don't recognize that positioning affects an objects value.  The world's greatest actor has a talent that is worth nothing unless he is actually put into a position where that talent can be used.  Hence, a talent agent, by finding that actor, is able to convert potential productivity into actual productivity.

You treat this as if it is something minor, something anyone can do, but that is not true.  Realizing the potential of others requires considerable effort, and considerable competence to do, and as such, they deserve appropriate compensation.  This is not something that can be just dealt with off the books.


Quote from: Psy
The fighting was in the same nation, meaning workers joined armies (this is being effected by fighting) and you seem to forget fighting spread right into the streets Madrid with Stalinists opening fire on Trots and Anarchists.
Irrelevant given the specifics.

Quote from: Psy
It is a example of a planned economy being able to create new means of production and technology.
It was a failed economy.  I see no difference between communist and capitalist russia by the way.  Both systems were pretty much the same, either you had Kremlin power or you didn't.

Quote from: Psy
No, because Warren Buffet still takes away value thus still a inefficiency.  You can argue that Warren Buffet saves value from being wasted but not that Warren Buffet creates value.
Saving value from being wasted is the same as creating it for the purposes of economic improvement.

Quote from: Psy
The point is it is not bloat, it is just that GM's foreign competitors devalued GM's commodities through lowering the labor value required, thus less exchange value is produced per car.
The bloat was the direct product of foreign companies lowering the labor value required, and that had nothing to do with whether or not GM was run by capitalists or workers.


Quote from: Psy
But if you fire workers you decrease demand
Firing workers decreases supply.  This is incredibly obvious.

Quote from: Psy
With what means of production?
You find useful (IE profitable) jobs and pay them money to do them.

Quote from: Psy
But if elected officials are corrupt having private companies manage production would not stop said corruption if capitalists also are corrupt.
Having private companies manage production makes elected officials less likely to corrupt, and gives the system a chance for working.  Handing over production directly to elected officials removes any such chance. 

Realize that I'm presuming a system where bribery of political officials is banned rather than called lobbying, and where the government pays for all election costs but prohibits others from doing so.

Quote from: Psy
What does how the military deals with law enforcement have to do with how militarizes deal with production?
I was assuming it was obvious.  In military, striking is desertion, would be considered unpatriotic, and would be brutally put down.  In civil systems, striking is considered to be a semi-acceptable form of popular activism.  Those differences will carry over to production.

On the subject of the historical stuff, I still find Russia to be a very bad model to be considering for any kind of knowledge regarding economic systems.  Maybe if one of the European countries goes more actively communist...


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 14, 2009, 11:24:57 EDT
Quote from: Psy
LTV has been proven possible in controlled experiments while its alternatives have failed for example Reinhard Sippel experiments in 1995 that disproved modern micro-economic theory by showing the average human doesn't value commodities as modern micro-economic theory theorizes.   Also LTV is also the best theory to explain how other animals create value, for trying to say you can use Marginalism to explain how wolves generate value for this pack is laughable but zoologist do use value theories based on LTV to explain how animals generate value.
I would like to see those controlled experiments.  If LTV is so compelling, why can't you offer a simple and logical explanation of it that makes any sense?
The most simply and logical example and constant controlled on going experiment would be Dungeons and Dragons, even though the experiment was not started by scientists some in the scientific community has taken notice of how D&D is grounded in LTV, in D&D utility is quantified in formals all the players know but what is missing is LTV which is filled out by the player's common sense, players compare utility to effort (labor) to make long term strategies of levelling up so players basically plug in LTV like formulas into formulas that tell them utility that gives the player the value of equipment, spells, tactics, strategies, ect.   Even without known about LTV gamers value based on LTV in order to maximize their utility in games.

Looking at the animal world it is possible to use LTV to explain value there.  For example the value of a kill of a wolf pack would be the labor the pack invested in the kill over the energy they get from the kill.  

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Then you have the fact that LTV satisfies Occam's razor, the other value theories are overly complex, so complex scientists are not sure humans are even are mentally capable of valuing on the margins, since it would take 2^1000 calculations for a animal to value on the margins between only 1,000 goods, the average brain would take 10^200 seconds to process the value of 1,000 goods if marginal theory was true.
You are now using strawman.  You are taking an extreme version of an already bad theory and offering it as the only possible explanation.  I'm not a supporter of so called "rational" economic theory, don't portray me as being such.
LTV is still the simplest theory that works.  

Quote from: wodan46
Decision science discusses precisely how people can't value 1,000 goods so they take shortcuts.  Much of decision science is discussing the benefits and costs of such shortcuts to decision making.
In LTV they can since under LTV they value based on effort so instead of comparing utility across goods they look at the effort required thus why it is possible for gamers to quickly to value fictional goods in a game.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Because value comes from the application of labor to the creation of utility/commodities, managing the process is not creating value, that is like saying a talent agent creates talent rather then simply manage talent.
Let's say at one factory, people are able to make a shirt with 2 hours of labor.  At another factory, someone comes up with a method to make shirts in 1 hour of labor, and shares this with the workers.  Those workers are now able to produce twice as much as they would without the idea.  According to you, that inventor deserves no credit for anything because he doesn't spend any time making commodities, even though he directly enabled the production of said commodities.  It probably also took him many hours of labor to come up with method.
Engineers are workers, they are paid a wage for their work and only paid a fraction of the value their produced.  They are involved in the production process as they design the means of production, process of production and commodities.  Capitalists don't perform this task, very few capitalists had engineering degrees and engineering is not a prerequisite for business courses.  

Quote from: wodan46
You don't seem to recognize that coordination and ingenuity often result in massive increases in productivity, and thus are indirect producers of value.  
Foremen usually direct production not CEOs and investors rarely even are aware of the production process.

Quote from: wodan46
You also don't recognize that positioning affects an objects value.  The world's greatest actor has a talent that is worth nothing unless he is actually put into a position where that talent can be used.  Hence, a talent agent, by finding that actor, is able to convert potential productivity into actual productivity.

You treat this as if it is something minor, something anyone can do, but that is not true.  Realizing the potential of others requires considerable effort, and considerable competence to do, and as such, they deserve appropriate compensation.  This is not something that can be just dealt with off the books.
But the talent agent doesn't create talent, if a studio discovered the talent directly the studio would still get the same amount talent then if it was brought to them through a talent agent.


Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
The fighting was in the same nation, meaning workers joined armies (this is being effected by fighting) and you seem to forget fighting spread right into the streets Madrid with Stalinists opening fire on Trots and Anarchists.
Irrelevant given the specifics.
Firefights on the streets is disruptive to production regardless of the parties involved.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
It is a example of a planned economy being able to create new means of production and technology.
It was a failed economy.  I see no difference between communist and capitalist russia by the way.  Both systems were pretty much the same, either you had Kremlin power or you didn't.
Like I said the U.S.S.R in the 1980's was able to provide for 5 million more Russian's (and the populations of the breakaway's) at a significantly higher living standard.  Yes the workers were unhappy about the undemocratic nature of the U.S.S.R and stagnation of living standards but the breakup of the U.S.S.R no only didn't solve this.  Russian's didn't even want free-markets, Yeltsin needed to order a military coup to crush what little democracy was created by the break up of the U.S.S.R in order to push through free-market reforms as most Russians were pushing for democratic socialism not for free-market capitalism.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
No, because Warren Buffet still takes away value thus still a inefficiency.  You can argue that Warren Buffet saves value from being wasted but not that Warren Buffet creates value.
Saving value from being wasted is the same as creating it for the purposes of economic improvement.
It is not creating it as it is not a source of new value.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
The point is it is not bloat, it is just that GM's foreign competitors devalued GM's commodities through lowering the labor value required, thus less exchange value is produced per car.
The bloat was the direct product of foreign companies lowering the labor value required, and that had nothing to do with whether or not GM was run by capitalists or workers.
You view as bloat, while I simply view it as an older means of production.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
But if you fire workers you decrease demand
Firing workers decreases supply.  This is incredibly obvious.
But firing workers also decreases demand, you need money to buy commodities.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
With what means of production?
You find useful (IE profitable) jobs and pay them money to do them.
There is rampant over-production across all sectors of global capitalism.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
But if elected officials are corrupt having private companies manage production would not stop said corruption if capitalists also are corrupt.
Having private companies manage production makes elected officials less likely to corrupt, and gives the system a chance for working.  Handing over production directly to elected officials removes any such chance.  

Realize that I'm presuming a system where bribery of political officials is banned rather than called lobbying, and where the government pays for all election costs but prohibits others from doing so.
Why?  Elected officials are bought off by private companies, even if you ban it why wouldn't it just go underground?

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
What does how the military deals with law enforcement have to do with how militarizes deal with production?
I was assuming it was obvious.  In military, striking is desertion, would be considered unpatriotic, and would be brutally put down.  In civil systems, striking is considered to be a semi-acceptable form of popular activism.  Those differences will carry over to production.
That is true but when it comes to producing utility (like a bridge) they are able to organize productive forces as good as any private company.

Quote from: wodan46
On the subject of the historical stuff, I still find Russia to be a very bad model to be considering for any kind of knowledge regarding economic systems.  Maybe if one of the European countries goes more actively communist...
Yet the Marxist revolutions in Germany (yes there was more then one) after WWI were crushed so there wasn't.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Current on July 14, 2009, 15:59:41 EDT
Are people actually interested in this?

If so it's worth mentioning that although Psy is wrong about several things Wodan also has a few things wrong about marginalism too.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: wodan46 on July 14, 2009, 17:45:43 EDT
Are people actually interested in this?
This thread is now the LTV thread more or less.  Other threads are also present.

Wodan also has a few things wrong about marginalism too.
I have no idea what that even is, so it wouldn't be surprising.  Given that I also view the vast majority of economic theory to be garbage, I don't really mind.

I am actually pretty close to Psy's perspectives on capitalists, but I still believe them to be an important and necessary cog.  However, I think that CEOs and upper management should receive bonuses based on the profits they earn the company, not based on their ability to transfer earnings to themselves and expenses to others.




Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: wodan46 on July 14, 2009, 18:31:23 EDT
Quote from: Psy
LTV is still the simplest theory that works.
Except that it doesn't reflect accurately.

Let's say we got two armies.  Each of them has the same number of soldiers, all equipped with the same weapons (bolt action rifles), fighting over a symmetric but complex battlefield.  All of them have the same skills, the same strengths, the same effective labor.  The only difference is that one army formed a command structure before the battle, so that the army could coordinate itself and respond to information.  The other army does not, and the soldiers simply march into battle, making no effort to coordinate beyond those immediately near them.

Who do you think would win and why?

Quote from: Psy
Engineers are workers, they are paid a wage for their work and only paid a fraction of the value their produced.  They are involved in the production process as they design the means of production, process of production and commodities.  Capitalists don't perform this task, very few capitalists had engineering degrees and engineering is not a prerequisite for business courses.
They accomplish the same effects, but with managing skills rather than engineering.  They convert potential skill into actual skill, by doing so they increase the effectiveness of labor, and thus they generate value.

Quote from: Psy
Foremen usually direct production not CEOs and investors rarely even are aware of the production process.
But they direct the Foremen.  They coordinate the coordinators.  They deal with the bigger picture.


Quote from: Psy
But the talent agent doesn't create talent, if a studio discovered the talent directly the studio would still get the same amount talent then if it was brought to them through a talent agent.
And how did the studio discover the talent?  Did they sort through countless people who claim to have talent, or don't claim to have talent at all, only to spot and identify the one who did have talent?  You treat this as if it is something that the studio can do as an aside, a minor task, not worthy of even noting.  However, the spotting of talent from a vast sea of non-talents is not an easy task.  Hence there are talent agents.

Quote from: Psy
Firefights on the streets is disruptive to production regardless of the parties involved.
It was true even when there weren't firefights, in fully stable and peaceful regions isolated from the conflict.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
Saving value from being wasted is the same as creating it for the purposes of economic improvement.
It is not creating it as it is not a source of new value.
Irrelevant.  Higher value is higher value.  It doesn't matter how that value got higher, it counts as improvement.  Stop wasting my time with semantic games.

Quote from: Psy
older means of production.
The older means of production necessitated the development of bloat in order to match newer means of production, even though doing so would ultimately be economically unviable.  None of this deals with the issue that it would have been the same if workers had been in charge.  In fact, a capitalist with large reserves of money is in a far better position to take a loss now by switching over to a newer means of production in order to ensure success later.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
Firing workers decreases supply.  This is incredibly obvious.
But firing workers also decreases demand, you need money to buy commodities.
I have no idea what you are talking about.  Firing a worker who makes cars decreases car production, hence the car supply is decreases.  It does not increase demand for cars, though due to the changing ratio of supply to demand, car prices may eventually start to increase.

Quote from: Psy
There is rampant over-production across all sectors of global capitalism.
How so?  Isn't communism even worse, regularly over and under producing.

Quote from: Psy
Why?  Elected officials are bought off by private companies, even if you ban it why wouldn't it just go underground?
The choices are have elected officials potentially be bought off by private companies, or have them BE the private companies.  In the former, its possible to do something.  In the latter, you are just plain screwed.

The main reason elected officials are successfully bought off by private companies is because they need their money in order to stand a chance at getting elected.  The solution is to have the government pay for election related bills (and make them pay a LOT), but refuse to pay for any politician who has a hint of private money usage.  For bonus irony, pay for this with taxes on private companies.

Quote from: Psy
That is true but when it comes to producing utility (like a bridge) they are able to organize productive forces as good as any private company.
The difference being if civil workers refuse to build a bridge until they get better benefits, they are taking a stand and will have some support, whereas if soldiers refuse to build a bridge until they get better benefits, they get courtmartialed and jailed.

Quote from: Psy
Yet the Marxist revolutions in Germany (yes there was more then one) after WWI were crushed so there wasn't.
I'm talking about the socialist lite systems present now in Europe, which might eventually go more so.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 14, 2009, 18:52:16 EDT
Wodan also has a few things wrong about marginalism too.
I have no idea what that even is, so it wouldn't be surprising.  Given that I also view the vast majority of economic theory to be garbage, I don't really mind.

I am actually pretty close to Psy's perspectives on capitalists, but I still believe them to be an important and necessary cog.  However, I think that CEOs and upper management should receive bonuses based on the profits they earn the company, not based on their ability to transfer earnings to themselves and expenses to others.

The issue is not whether capitalists are important and necessary cog in capitalism but if they are the source of new value in capitalism.  LTV says that capitalists are not a source of new value, that all the value they saved was produced by workers in the production cycle and centres of production are far more important in determining the production new value then those that manage said centres of production.  

The revelation of this is if workers could conger up unlimited utility with little effort said unlimited utility would have next to little market value, this means eventually technology would outgrow capitalism as eventually technology would make productive forces too vast for any commodity to have any significant market value.  


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: wodan46 on July 14, 2009, 19:08:09 EDT
The issue is not whether capitalists are important and necessary cog in capitalism but if they are the source of new value in capitalism.
A society with capitalists is capable of generating more value than a society without them, all other things being the same.  Whether or not they directly produce that value, or whether or not they spend as many hours of labor for that value as a worker would, is irrelevant.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 14, 2009, 19:31:27 EDT
Quote from: Psy
LTV is still the simplest theory that works.
Except that it doesn't reflect accurately.

Let's say we got two armies.  Each of them has the same number of soldiers, all equipped with the same weapons (bolt action rifles), fighting over a symmetric but complex battlefield.  All of them have the same skills, the same strengths, the same effective labor.  The only difference is that one army formed a command structure before the battle, so that the army could coordinate itself and respond to information.  The other army does not, and the soldiers simply march into battle, making no effort to coordinate beyond those immediately near them.


Who do you think would win and why?
Marxists like planning and organization they just like that planning and organization to be of those on the ground.  The POUM (Trots) of the Spanish Civil War pushed for greater and greater organization on the battlefield.

So ask yourself which army would have a better chance, the army that is centrally organized with no autonomy among the units or the army of peers where troops are expected the make decisions and take responsibility for those decisions yet there is central goal.  Think what would happen to troops of the first army if they get cut off from their command or they are faced with a ambush and their command is unaware of what is going on.  Think of the increased moral of the troops of the second army were they know when some over their radio barks orders they know those orders are organization from their comrades on the battlefield rather then some brass nowhere near the fighting.

You can kinda see this in multi-player games, trying to have a central leader usually fails and the teams that usually dominate are the teams where they work well together, share command and can work semi-autonomously.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Engineers are workers, they are paid a wage for their work and only paid a fraction of the value their produced.  They are involved in the production process as they design the means of production, process of production and commodities.  Capitalists don't perform this task, very few capitalists had engineering degrees and engineering is not a prerequisite for business courses.
They accomplish the same effects, but with managing skills rather than engineering.  They convert potential skill into actual skill, by doing so they increase the effectiveness of labor, and thus they generate value.
That assumes workers need to managed to be productive.  Free projects like free software suggest otherwise.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Foremen usually direct production not CEOs and investors rarely even are aware of the production process.
But they direct the Foremen.  They coordinate the coordinators.  They deal with the bigger picture.
They deal in nothing but maximizing profits, a simple computer program could do that with similar success rates,

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
But the talent agent doesn't create talent, if a studio discovered the talent directly the studio would still get the same amount talent then if it was brought to them through a talent agent.
And how did the studio discover the talent?  Did they sort through countless people who claim to have talent, or don't claim to have talent at all, only to spot and identify the one who did have talent?  You treat this as if it is something that the studio can do as an aside, a minor task, not worthy of even noting.  However, the spotting of talent from a vast sea of non-talents is not an easy task.  Hence there are talent agents.
Michal Bay is allowed to make films and he has no talent so currently it is pretty much what ever sells rather then talent.


Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Firefights on the streets is disruptive to production regardless of the parties involved.
It was true even when there weren't firefights, in fully stable and peaceful regions isolated from the conflict.
There really wasn't any truly isolated regions.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
Saving value from being wasted is the same as creating it for the purposes of economic improvement.
It is not creating it as it is not a source of new value.
Irrelevant.  Higher value is higher value.  It doesn't matter how that value got higher, it counts as improvement.  Stop wasting my time with semantic games.
Where new value comes from is a important point.


Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
older means of production.
The older means of production necessitated the development of bloat in order to match newer means of production, even though doing so would ultimately be economically unviable.  None of this deals with the issue that it would have been the same if workers had been in charge.  In fact, a capitalist with large reserves of money is in a far better position to take a loss now by switching over to a newer means of production in order to ensure success later.
By thing for a minute, labor value equals market value of the commodity so lowering labor value devalues the community which means less value is produced per vehicle.  Yes increased demand offsets thus but currently that is highly unlikely.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
Firing workers decreases supply.  This is incredibly obvious.
But firing workers also decreases demand, you need money to buy commodities.
I have no idea what you are talking about.  Firing a worker who makes cars decreases car production, hence the car supply is decreases.  It does not increase demand for cars, though due to the changing ratio of supply to demand, car prices may eventually start to increase.
It lowers demand for cars since there is less means of consumption in the market.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
There is rampant over-production across all sectors of global capitalism.
How so?  Isn't communism even worse, regularly over and under producing.
Just look at production figures, they have been going down since the beginning of the crisis.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Why?  Elected officials are bought off by private companies, even if you ban it why wouldn't it just go underground?
The choices are have elected officials potentially be bought off by private companies, or have them BE the private companies.  In the former, its possible to do something.  In the latter, you are just plain screwed.

The main reason elected officials are successfully bought off by private companies is because they need their money in order to stand a chance at getting elected.  The solution is to have the government pay for election related bills (and make them pay a LOT), but refuse to pay for any politician who has a hint of private money usage.  For bonus irony, pay for this with taxes on private companies.
But how do you stop capitalists as a class having more influence of the government?


Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
That is true but when it comes to producing utility (like a bridge) they are able to organize productive forces as good as any private company.
The difference being if civil workers refuse to build a bridge until they get better benefits, they are taking a stand and will have some support, whereas if soldiers refuse to build a bridge until they get better benefits, they get courtmartialed and jailed.
Again true but we are talking about the ability to organize productive forces to produce utility.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Yet the Marxist revolutions in Germany (yes there was more then one) after WWI were crushed so there wasn't.
I'm talking about the socialist lite systems present now in Europe, which might eventually go more so.
But think about it, if Germany after WWI went Marxist Russia would have had aid from a major industrial power to modernize and Germany being a major industrial power didn't have the problems Russia had when it came to productive capacity.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 14, 2009, 19:34:08 EDT
The issue is not whether capitalists are important and necessary cog in capitalism but if they are the source of new value in capitalism.
A society with capitalists is capable of generating more value than a society without them, all other things being the same.  Whether or not they directly produce that value, or whether or not they spend as many hours of labor for that value as a worker would, is irrelevant.
This crisis suggests otherwise, as capitalists cut back the production of new value.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: wodan46 on July 14, 2009, 22:46:06 EDT
Marxists like planning and organization they just like that planning and organization to be of those on the ground.
Fair enough.

So ask yourself which army would have a better chance, the army that is centrally organized with no autonomy among the units or the army of peers where troops are expected the make decisions and take responsibility for those decisions yet there is central goal.
The army has command operating at all levels.  It would have them at the levels that you do, but it has them at higher levels.  If a squad got surrounded and cut off, a commander might be able to rescue it, or prevent it from happening altogether.  No such chance if squads operate separately.

Think what would happen to troops of the first army if they get cut off from their command or they are faced with a ambush and their command is unaware of what is going on.  Think of the increased moral of the troops of the second army were they know when some over their radio barks orders they know those orders are organization from their comrades on the battlefield rather then some brass nowhere near the fighting.
Their orders are still from those on the battlefield.  However, those who can see the bigger picture give orders to those who give orders.  The guy on the ground can only see so much from his position.  While the higher commanders won't be able to see any position with the same level of detail, they have information on many positions.

You can kinda see this in multi-player games, trying to have a central leader usually fails and the teams that usually dominate are the teams where they work well together, share command and can work semi-autonomously.
That's because players on a team generally have access to the same information, and have armies that they and only they can command.  There are only a few games that break from that setup.  There are several half life mods wherein most players are first person grunts and one player acts as a third person leader.  The leader is generally considered critical.

Quote from: Psy
That assumes workers need to managed to be productive.  Free projects like free software suggest otherwise.
Showing that there are some circumstances where workers can be productive without management doesn't mean anything, especially since you would often need management to get workers to be at such areas to begin with, and there are still many cases where management value is quite clear.

Also, you are presuming that what works for small systems works for large systems.

Quote from: Psy
They deal in nothing but maximizing profits, a simple computer program could do that with similar success rates,
You are saying someone is capable of writing a program capable of analyzing the economic currents of the world, analyzing a variety of ventures and approaches to a system, then picking the best system?  Why isn't he a billionaire yet?

Quote from: Psy
Michal Bay is allowed to make films and he has no talent so currently it is pretty much what ever sells rather then talent.
You completely ignored my answer in favor of making an ad hominem to a person who isn't even in the debate.  A person who managed to make a movie that makes 400 million in 5 days, and will likely make 1.5-2 billion in total.  I'd say that's pretty talented.  He ignored the critics, he ignored the naysayers, and made a movie that focused entirely on robots beating each other up with lots of explosions, while occasionally humiliating the human characters, with no semblance of plot or coherence.  To reduce an action movie to such basic purity was ingenious.


Quote from: Psy
There really wasn't any truly isolated regions.
Wrong

Quote from: Psy
Where new value comes from is a important point.
No it isn't.  What's relevant is whether or not the value you have at the end of the day was better than the value at the start of it.


Quote from: Psy
By thing for a minute, labor value equals market value of the commodity so lowering labor value devalues the community which means less value is produced per vehicle.  Yes increased demand offsets thus but currently that is highly unlikely.
Irrelevant.  Stay on subject.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
I have no idea what you are talking about.  Firing a worker who makes cars decreases car production, hence the car supply is decreases.  It does not increase demand for cars, though due to the changing ratio of supply to demand, car prices may eventually start to increase.
It lowers demand for cars since there is less means of consumption in the market.
How so?  The demand for cars is not dependent on the supply for cars.  The only relationship those two factors have is pricing.

Quote from: Psy
Just look at production figures, they have been going down since the beginning of the crisis.
How does that prove anything?

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
The main reason elected officials are successfully bought off by private companies is because they need their money in order to stand a chance at getting elected.  The solution is to have the government pay for election related bills (and make them pay a LOT), but refuse to pay for any politician who has a hint of private money usage.  For bonus irony, pay for this with taxes on private companies.
But how do you stop capitalists as a class having more influence of the government?
Capitalists may influence Politicians, but they are hardly dominant over them.  My system would decrease this influence even further.

Quote from: Psy
Again true but we are talking about the ability to organize productive forces to produce utility.
No we are not.  You keep changing the subjects of the debate to meet your stilted rhetoric.  I was establishing that regardless of the short term economic benefits military based production would have, the differing rules of the military system would inevitably lead to a dictatorial and corrupt system.

Quote from: Psy
But think about it, if Germany after WWI went Marxist Russia would have had aid from a major industrial power to modernize and Germany being a major industrial power didn't have the problems Russia had when it came to productive capacity.
How would Germany help Russia when its own economy collapses?  Russia, by being independent of the overall economic system, was shielded from the depression and was actually the only country to really benefit from it, or at least break even.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 15, 2009, 01:47:06 EDT
So ask yourself which army would have a better chance, the army that is centrally organized with no autonomy among the units or the army of peers where troops are expected the make decisions and take responsibility for those decisions yet there is central goal.
The army has command operating at all levels.  It would have them at the levels that you do, but it has them at higher levels.  If a squad got surrounded and cut off, a commander might be able to rescue it, or prevent it from happening altogether.  No such chance if squads operate separately.

Think what would happen to troops of the first army if they get cut off from their command or they are faced with a ambush and their command is unaware of what is going on.  Think of the increased moral of the troops of the second army were they know when some over their radio barks orders they know those orders are organization from their comrades on the battlefield rather then some brass nowhere near the fighting.
Their orders are still from those on the battlefield.  However, those who can see the bigger picture give orders to those who give orders.  The guy on the ground can only see so much from his position.  While the higher commanders won't be able to see any position with the same level of detail, they have information on many positions.
The problem is imperfect information at higher levels of command and information bottlenecking to get to those that can make sense of that information.  For example artillery really doesn't need the option of leaders off the battlefield, what they need is information of friendly units that have contact the enemy within range of their guns, higher ups might overlook the importance their firepower has at lower levels especially if they are unaware of the situation at that level (for example the wind making firing at target A more effective then target B due to less correcting for wind age thus faster re-aiming).

Quote from: wodan46
You can kinda see this in multi-player games, trying to have a central leader usually fails and the teams that usually dominate are the teams where they work well together, share command and can work semi-autonomously.
That's because players on a team generally have access to the same information, and have armies that they and only they can command.  There are only a few games that break from that setup.  There are several half life mods wherein most players are first person grunts and one player acts as a third person leader.  The leader is generally considered critical.
While they access to the same information they are focusing on different parts of that information

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
That assumes workers need to managed to be productive.  Free projects like free software suggest otherwise.
Showing that there are some circumstances where workers can be productive without management doesn't mean anything, especially since you would often need management to get workers to be at such areas to begin with, and there are still many cases where management value is quite clear.

Also, you are presuming that what works for small systems works for large systems.
But then you also have issues of what mind of management.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
They deal in nothing but maximizing profits, a simple computer program could do that with similar success rates,
You are saying someone is capable of writing a program capable of analyzing the economic currents of the world, analyzing a variety of ventures and approaches to a system, then picking the best system?  Why isn't he a billionaire yet?
For two reason, one you have a element of chance and next you have a large element of social order.  Meaning to get rich mostly your either already of a high social standing or lucky.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Michal Bay is allowed to make films and he has no talent so currently it is pretty much what ever sells rather then talent.
You completely ignored my answer in favor of making an ad hominem to a person who isn't even in the debate.  A person who managed to make a movie that makes 400 million in 5 days, and will likely make 1.5-2 billion in total.  I'd say that's pretty talented.  He ignored the critics, he ignored the naysayers, and made a movie that focused entirely on robots beating each other up with lots of explosions, while occasionally humiliating the human characters, with no semblance of plot or coherence.  To reduce an action movie to such basic purity was ingenious.
He is more an example of how demand is manufactured, his editing is distracting and disorientating.  The pace is sluggish due to focusing on irrelevant plot points (and the whole plot makes no sense).  Even the action is bad due to the Michal Bay's lack of any editing technique.


Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
There really wasn't any truly isolated regions.
Wrong
Unless your talking about Spanish colonies which had the problem of being far from industries in Spain there was no truly isolated regions.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Where new value comes from is a important point.
No it isn't.  What's relevant is whether or not the value you have at the end of the day was better than the value at the start of it.
Since capitalism required perpetual growth new value creation is very important.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
By thing for a minute, labor value equals market value of the commodity so lowering labor value devalues the community which means less value is produced per vehicle.  Yes increased demand offsets thus but currently that is highly unlikely.
Irrelevant.  Stay on subject.
How so, lowering labor value lower market value of the commodity.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
I have no idea what you are talking about.  Firing a worker who makes cars decreases car production, hence the car supply is decreases.  It does not increase demand for cars, though due to the changing ratio of supply to demand, car prices may eventually start to increase.
It lowers demand for cars since there is less means of consumption in the market.
How so?  The demand for cars is not dependent on the supply for cars.  The only relationship those two factors have is pricing.
But the demand of cars is dependant on the ability for workers to buy cars.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Just look at production figures, they have been going down since the beginning of the crisis.
How does that prove anything?
It proves there is overproduction because capitalists across all industries are dramatically slashing production.


Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: wodan46
The main reason elected officials are successfully bought off by private companies is because they need their money in order to stand a chance at getting elected.  The solution is to have the government pay for election related bills (and make them pay a LOT), but refuse to pay for any politician who has a hint of private money usage.  For bonus irony, pay for this with taxes on private companies.
But how do you stop capitalists as a class having more influence of the government?
Capitalists may influence Politicians, but they are hardly dominant over them.  My system would decrease this influence even further.
Capitalists are the dominant class.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
Again true but we are talking about the ability to organize productive forces to produce utility.
No we are not.  You keep changing the subjects of the debate to meet your stilted rhetoric.  I was establishing that regardless of the short term economic benefits military based production would have, the differing rules of the military system would inevitably lead to a dictatorial and corrupt system.
But I'm not arguing for military based production, I'm using military production to show capitalist mode of production is not the only effective way of organizing productive forces.

Quote from: wodan46
Quote from: Psy
But think about it, if Germany after WWI went Marxist Russia would have had aid from a major industrial power to modernize and Germany being a major industrial power didn't have the problems Russia had when it came to productive capacity.
How would Germany help Russia when its own economy collapses?  Russia, by being independent of the overall economic system, was shielded from the depression and was actually the only country to really benefit from it, or at least break even.
Mostly due to reparations, noticed that once Germany stopped paying reparations its economy quickly recovered.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Current on July 15, 2009, 15:49:14 EDT
A few points

On Marginalism...

Quote from: Psy
You think that post LTV theories (like the subjective theory of value) are commonsensical axioms even though they have all failed in controlled experiments while LTV has been proved possible in controlled experiments.
Quote from: Psy
Then you have the fact that LTV satisfies Occam's razor, the other value theories are overly complex, so complex scientists are not sure humans are even are mentally capable of valuing on the margins, since it would take 2^1000 calculations for a animal to value on the margins between only 1,000 goods, the average brain would take 10^200 seconds to process the value of 1,000 goods if marginal theory was true.

The experiments that Psy mentions were not aimed at proving or disproving the "subjective theory of value".  Rather they were aimed at a particular strand of that theory, the so called "indifference curve" analysis of utility.

These two ideas are quite distinct.  The simple form of the subjective theory is that an individual has priorities.  That individual can prioritize the things they desire for consumption.  For example, a persons priorities may be, generally put:

1. Have food and drink.
2. Have access to a flat or house to live in.
3. Have access to a car.
4....

That person will use the resources they have in that priority.  Naturally priorities change with time.  And naturally people make mistakes and mismanage their priorities.

The subject of the experiment was different.  The theory in question there was the ability of a person to optimize an overall figure, a "number of utils" of utility.  This theory is equivalent to saying three things:

* 1) Goods exist in a continuous spectrum of usefulness.
* 2) People do not make mistakes in managing their marginal priorities.
* 3) Doing the mental calculation to avoid #2 is always worthwhile.

This theory was known to be dubious long before the experiment.  I don't believe it because I don't think the premises above are reasonable.

However, this doesn't affect any important theory of economics.


On the roll of owners...

Quote from: wodan46
Hence, those with access to value stored in the form of currency must make decisions as to how to distribute it in order to result in the generation rather than the loss of value.  This is the goal that CEOs are SUPPOSED to have, when it comes to managing their companies resources.  The problem is that it is too easy for CEOs to siphon stored value to themselves while concealing their actions, resulting in them draining the system.
Not CEOs.  As Psy has mentioned previously CEOs are not owners, they are managers.  It is the owners, those who own shares, who have the ulitimate job of allocating resources.  They do so by deciding what to invest in.

When CEOs rip-off the businesses that they manage that is not a problem for society unless a crime has occurred, it is a problem for shareholders who are the businesses owners.  The law supports CEOs and boards by deliberately making things difficult for shareholders, and it has done for nearly a century.

Wodan, you are otherwise exactly right in identifying the roll of those in higher levels.  Regarding the roll of owners I'll quote Ludvig Von Mises from his article "Profit and Loss":

Quote from: Mises
If all people were to anticipate correctly the future state of the market, the entrepreneurs would neither earn any profits nor suffer any losses. They would have to buy the complementary factors of production at prices which would, already at the instant of the purchase, fully reflect the future prices of the products. No room would be left either for profit or for loss. What makes profit emerge is the fact that the entrepreneur who judges the future prices of the products more correctly than other people do buys some or all of the factors of production at prices which, seen from the point of view of the future state of the market, are too low. Thus the total costs of production — including interest on the capital invested — lag behind the prices which the entrepreneur receives for the product. This difference is entrepreneurial profit.

On the other hand, the entrepreneur who misjudges the future prices of the products allows for the factors of production prices which, seen from the point of view of the future state of the market, are too high. His total costs of production exceed the prices at which he can sell the product. This difference is entrepreneurial loss.

Thus profit and loss are generated by success or failure in adjusting the course of production activities to the most urgent demand of the consumers. Once this adjustment is achieved, they disappear. The prices of the complementary factors of production reach a height at which total costs of production coincide with the price of the product. Profit and loss are ever-present features only on account of the fact that ceaseless change in the economic data makes again and again new discrepancies, and consequently the need for new adjustments originate.

2. The Distinction Between Profits and Other Proceeds

Many errors concerning the nature of profit and loss were caused by the practice of applying the term profit to the totality of the residual proceeds of an entrepreneur.

Interest on the capital employed is not a component part of profit. The dividends of a corporation are not profit. They are interest on the capital invested plus profit or minus loss.

The market equivalent of work performed by the entrepreneur in the conduct of the enterprise's affairs is entrepreneurial quasi-wages but not profit.


On LTV...

Reverend Sydney Smith joined the political economy club in the 19th century, in the heyday of the Labour Theory of Value.  He joined to find out what "value" is, he left because nobody there could tell him.  He went on to write a rhyming recipe for salad dressing.

Psy's claim is that all administrative activities do not contribute to "value".  As Wodan correctly notes this is entirely circular and make no sense.

Consider farmers for example.  Farmers do not grow crops, crops grow of their own accord.  Farmers do the work of making that happen.  So, under what branch of LTV logic do farmers "create value".  The only argument can be that organizing humans is different to organizing plants or animals.  One "creates value" but the other does not.

Psy, remember, no circular arguments.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 15, 2009, 18:58:26 EDT
A few points

On Marginalism...

Quote from: Psy
You think that post LTV theories (like the subjective theory of value) are commonsensical axioms even though they have all failed in controlled experiments while LTV has been proved possible in controlled experiments.
Quote from: Psy
Then you have the fact that LTV satisfies Occam's razor, the other value theories are overly complex, so complex scientists are not sure humans are even are mentally capable of valuing on the margins, since it would take 2^1000 calculations for a animal to value on the margins between only 1,000 goods, the average brain would take 10^200 seconds to process the value of 1,000 goods if marginal theory was true.

The experiments that Psy mentions were not aimed at proving or disproving the "subjective theory of value".  Rather they were aimed at a particular strand of that theory, the so called "indifference curve" analysis of utility.

These two ideas are quite distinct.  The simple form of the subjective theory is that an individual has priorities.  That individual can prioritize the things they desire for consumption.  For example, a persons priorities may be, generally put:

1. Have food and drink.
2. Have access to a flat or house to live in.
3. Have access to a car.
4....

That person will use the resources they have in that priority.  Naturally priorities change with time.  And naturally people make mistakes and mismanage their priorities.

The subject of the experiment was different.  The theory in question there was the ability of a person to optimize an overall figure, a "number of utils" of utility.  This theory is equivalent to saying three things:

* 1) Goods exist in a continuous spectrum of usefulness.
* 2) People do not make mistakes in managing their marginal priorities.
* 3) Doing the mental calculation to avoid #2 is always worthwhile.

This theory was known to be dubious long before the experiment.  I don't believe it because I don't think the premises above are reasonable.

However, this doesn't affect any important theory of economics.

Then you run into how does one attempt to maximize utility, like I said in games like Dungeons and Dragons it is not really that hard for people to maximize utility of fictional goods through LTV.  Want to know the best gear for your player's class per level then basically it is LTV to rescue allowing gamers to compare effort to utility.

Quote from: Current


On the roll of owners...

Quote from: wodan46
Hence, those with access to value stored in the form of currency must make decisions as to how to distribute it in order to result in the generation rather than the loss of value.  This is the goal that CEOs are SUPPOSED to have, when it comes to managing their companies resources.  The problem is that it is too easy for CEOs to siphon stored value to themselves while concealing their actions, resulting in them draining the system.
Not CEOs.  As Psy has mentioned previously CEOs are not owners, they are managers.  It is the owners, those who own shares, who have the ulitimate job of allocating resources.  They do so by deciding what to invest in.

When CEOs rip-off the businesses that they manage that is not a problem for society unless a crime has occurred, it is a problem for shareholders who are the businesses owners.  The law supports CEOs and boards by deliberately making things difficult for shareholders, and it has done for nearly a century.
It a problem for society as it is misallocation of surplus value even from a capitalist perspective, this why capitalists Russia cracked down on corrupt capitalists, the bourgeois state had to step in to protect capitalism as a system from the corruption of capitalists.   

Quote from: wodan46
On LTV...

Reverend Sydney Smith joined the political economy club in the 19th century, in the heyday of the Labour Theory of Value.  He joined to find out what "value" is, he left because nobody there could tell him.  He went on to write a rhyming recipe for salad dressing.

Psy's claim is that all administrative activities do not contribute to "value".  As Wodan correctly notes this is entirely circular and make no sense.

Consider farmers for example.  Farmers do not grow crops, crops grow of their own accord.  Farmers do the work of making that happen.  So, under what branch of LTV logic do farmers "create value".  The only argument can be that organizing humans is different to organizing plants or animals.  One "creates value" but the other does not.

Psy, remember, no circular arguments.

Farmers exert energy adding utility to the crops, if the farmer goes on strike the utility if lost.  Yet if capitalists went on strike no utility would be lost since capitalists generate no utility that anyone would pay for.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Medivh on July 16, 2009, 00:24:07 EDT
Bringing this up is going to send Psy on another tangent, possibly. But it has to be done.

Regarding arguing LTV with Psy:
"A curious game, Professor.
The only winning move is not to play.

How about a game of chess?"


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Current on July 17, 2009, 07:54:47 EDT
Quote from: Medivh
Regarding arguing LTV with Psy

I don't think that I'll convince Psy.  However, in the 19th century when the original debate about the labour theory of value took place the main proponent of the theory was John Stuart Mill.  Mill himself was never convinced, however most other economists of the day were.  I only have Psy to argue against not J.S. Mill, so I think it's an easier job these days.



Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 17, 2009, 13:26:22 EDT
Quote from: Medivh
Regarding arguing LTV with Psy

I don't think that I'll convince Psy.  However, in the 19th century when the original debate about the labour theory of value took place the main proponent of the theory was John Stuart Mill.  Mill himself was never convinced, however most other economists of the day were.  I only have Psy to argue against not J.S. Mill, so I think it's an easier job these days.


I think it is harder since the rest of the scientific community has mostly written off modern economic theory as pseudoscience and view LTV far more seriously.  Even Technocrats with their energy accounting system is basically a variation of LTV but focusing on the energy workers need to labor.   If you ask any group of scientists and engineers talking about how to engineer a new society a tiny few would criticize the idea of using some form of LTV to gauge value in this future society.  From their point of view if you want to know for example the value of a space station to a future society the best to start probably would be looking the effort that would required to maintain the community on the space station over the utility that space station would provide humanity.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Current on July 17, 2009, 14:53:27 EDT
All these "views on other people's views" reminds me to get back to the point...

Then you run into how does one attempt to maximize utility,
My point is that marginal value theory doesn't require that utility be exactly maximized.  Indeed whether or not it can be "maximized" is open to debate.

What you are criticizing here are the forms of utility theory that require such maximization, such as the Arrow-Debreu-Hahn theory.  However, no important economic theories depend on such utility theories.

like I said in games like Dungeons and Dragons it is not really that hard for people to maximize utility of fictional goods through LTV.  Want to know the best gear for your player's class per level then basically it is LTV to rescue allowing gamers to compare effort to utility.
A person may *estimate* a comparison between effort and utility by looking at the amount of labour expended.  The critical point though is that utility doesn't depend on that amount.

Computer games and other sorts of games don't demonstrate any of the salient points.  Economics is not a game.  In computer games there is a strong relationship between the utility of a unit of some sort and the cost of it to the player.  However that relationship is programmed into the game.  There are no such similar relationships programmed into reality.  The relationship we observe between the price of commodities and the amount of labour they require is not an automatic one.  It comes into being because of the complex interplay of supply, demand and marginal decisions.

It a problem for society as it is misallocation of surplus value even from a capitalist perspective, this why capitalists Russia cracked down on corrupt capitalists, the bourgeois state had to step in to protect capitalism as a system from the corruption of capitalists.  
No it is not.  Owners in a free-market are quite capable of preventing it by reallocating their capital to more honest businesses and putting in place more checks and balances.  I agree that governments have stepped in in the past, this is simply a subsidy, it is not necessary.

Farmers exert energy adding utility to the crops, if the farmer goes on strike the utility if lost.  Yet if capitalists went on strike no utility would be lost since capitalists generate no utility that anyone would pay for.
It was not my point in this part of the discussion to talk about capitalists.  I was talking about administration.

You claim that "value" is only added by those who work on the production process.  Above you wrote:
Quote from: Psy
Because value comes from the application of labor to the creation of utility/commodities, managing the process is not creating value,
Now, as you have said before, in Marxist theories the labour value "inhered" in a product is proportional to the exchange value of that product, the price.  A capitalist adds his "surplus" on top of that labour value.

You claim that administrative tasks managing the process do not add value but that tasks within the process do.  According to Marxist theory that implies that administrative tasks don't have an impact on exchange value, i.e. price.

But, how can that be.  In any sort of society administration of production processes is necessary, even in a Marxist one.  In a capitalist society the cost of administration must be born by the business.  If it cannot make enough profit to pay for administration then it will go bankrupt.  The cost of administration must be charged in the cost of products.  Competition comes into play in administration too.  If a business can achieve lower administration costs while keeping other factors similar then it can make higher profits, or charge lower prices and expand it's market share.  So, how can you say that only the process of production affects price?

In my view managers organize workers, this is a valuable task.  Workers apply labour to the production of goods and services.  This is also a valuable task.  Now, back to the farmer I mentioned earlier.  Workers organize nature to perform their tasks.  Some tasks, such as lifting a box they do directly.  Others they do indirectly through machines or parts of the natural world.

A farmer uses seeds and the earth.  He doesn't grow the plants, they grow of their own accord.  I could therefore write-off the work of the farmer as irrelevant by your own logic.  I could explain this doctorine by paraphrasing your words:

"Value comes from the application of nature to the creation of commodities, managing the process is not creating value"

The belief that the source of all value is land is wrong, but just as wrong as believing the source to be labour.

It's worth going a little further on this point because it really shows the ridiculousness of Psy's theories.  Consider a factory that makes paper.  I buy a ream of paper from it.  I am both an engineer and a manager.  Does this mean that if I use a sheet of that paper in my role as an engineer then it "creates value" and affects the exchange value of products.  Whereas if I use a sheet of that paper as a manager the value is simply lost?


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 17, 2009, 18:02:37 EDT
All these "views on other people's views" reminds me to get back to the point...

Then you run into how does one attempt to maximize utility,
My point is that marginal value theory doesn't require that utility be exactly maximized.  Indeed whether or not it can be "maximized" is open to debate.

What you are criticizing here are the forms of utility theory that require such maximization, such as the Arrow-Debreu-Hahn theory.  However, no important economic theories depend on such utility theories.

But consumers try to maximize utility and to some extent succeed, that must mean consumers have a value system that is simple enough for a human to maximize utility to some extent. 

Quote from: Current
like I said in games like Dungeons and Dragons it is not really that hard for people to maximize utility of fictional goods through LTV.  Want to know the best gear for your player's class per level then basically it is LTV to rescue allowing gamers to compare effort to utility.
A person may *estimate* a comparison between effort and utility by looking at the amount of labour expended.  The critical point though is that utility doesn't depend on that amount.
Of course not utility and cost are two different variables, value in LTV is labor in over utility, so labor doesn't change utility but exchange value.

Quote from: Current
Computer games and other sorts of games don't demonstrate any of the salient points.  Economics is not a game.  In computer games there is a strong relationship between the utility of a unit of some sort and the cost of it to the player.  However that relationship is programmed into the game.  There are no such similar relationships programmed into reality.  The relationship we observe between the price of commodities and the amount of labour they require is not an automatic one.  It comes into being because of the complex interplay of supply, demand and marginal decisions.
No engineer in the world decides on what material to use based on marginal decisions, they once again use LTV to balance utility with cost.  The value of the commodity is known before the consumer buys it as it has been engineered just like the values of fictional goods in games.


Quote from: Current
It a problem for society as it is misallocation of surplus value even from a capitalist perspective, this why capitalists Russia cracked down on corrupt capitalists, the bourgeois state had to step in to protect capitalism as a system from the corruption of capitalists.  
No it is not.  Owners in a free-market are quite capable of preventing it by reallocating their capital to more honest businesses and putting in place more checks and balances.  I agree that governments have stepped in in the past, this is simply a subsidy, it is not necessary.
You forget about the falling rate of profit and over production/under consumption in the system.  The reason so many investors invested in these shady deals is there was no where else to invest.  Also it took huge efforts of bourgeois state to bail the capitalists out of the great depression.

Quote from: Current
Farmers exert energy adding utility to the crops, if the farmer goes on strike the utility if lost.  Yet if capitalists went on strike no utility would be lost since capitalists generate no utility that anyone would pay for.
It was not my point in this part of the discussion to talk about capitalists.  I was talking about administration.

You claim that "value" is only added by those who work on the production process.  Above you wrote:
Quote from: Psy
Because value comes from the application of labor to the creation of utility/commodities, managing the process is not creating value,
Now, as you have said before, in Marxist theories the labour value "inhered" in a product is proportional to the exchange value of that product, the price.  A capitalist adds his "surplus" on top of that labour value.
No in LTV the capitalist subtracts surplus value, the difference from what workers produce and what they are paid.

Quote from: Current
You claim that administrative tasks managing the process do not add value but that tasks within the process do.  According to Marxist theory that implies that administrative tasks don't have an impact on exchange value, i.e. price.

But, how can that be.  In any sort of society administration of production processes is necessary, even in a Marxist one.  In a capitalist society the cost of administration must be born by the business.  If it cannot make enough profit to pay for administration then it will go bankrupt.  The cost of administration must be charged in the cost of products.  Competition comes into play in administration too.  If a business can achieve lower administration costs while keeping other factors similar then it can make higher profits, or charge lower prices and expand it's market share.  So, how can you say that only the process of production affects price?
Because it is not utility the consumer cares about, for example a person buying a TV doesn't care about the administration of the factory to produced it.  It is also not utility that is very labor intensive, it really doesn't take much effort to maintain organization of production once workers understand the process.

Quote from: Current
In my view managers organize workers, this is a valuable task.  Workers apply labour to the production of goods and services.  This is also a valuable task.  Now, back to the farmer I mentioned earlier.  Workers organize nature to perform their tasks.  Some tasks, such as lifting a box they do directly.  Others they do indirectly through machines or parts of the natural world.

A farmer uses seeds and the earth.  He doesn't grow the plants, they grow of their own accord.  I could therefore write-off the work of the farmer as irrelevant by your own logic.  I could explain this doctorine by paraphrasing your words:

"Value comes from the application of nature to the creation of commodities, managing the process is not creating value"

The belief that the source of all value is land is wrong, but just as wrong as believing the source to be labour.
I don't see managers on the floor exerting energy, the farmer does so the farmers is doing much more then organizing nature.

Quote from: Current
It's worth going a little further on this point because it really shows the ridiculousness of Psy's theories.  Consider a factory that makes paper.  I buy a ream of paper from it.  I am both an engineer and a manager.  Does this mean that if I use a sheet of that paper in my role as an engineer then it "creates value" and affects the exchange value of products.  Whereas if I use a sheet of that paper as a manager the value is simply lost?
The paper doesn't create new value it doesn't exert energy, the act of a engineer using the paper create value to what the engineer is designing, while a manager using the paper just to manage production is simply overhead.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Current on July 18, 2009, 09:23:54 EDT
Quote from: Psy
But consumers try to maximize utility and to some extent succeed, that must mean consumers have a value system that is simple enough for a human to maximize utility to some extent.
Indeed.  However prioritizing spending is not difficult to understand.  I expect you do it yourself.

Also, it is not a criticism of marginalism to say that people use cost in their decisions.  Bohm-Bawerk wrote:
Quote from: Bohm-Bawerk
In practice, we stop innumerable times with a valuation based on costs. If one asks me how highly I value a winter coat, that I can buy at any moment at a cost of 40 florins, I will answer without hesitation and without further speculation: at 40 florins. If it were to cost only 35 florins, so I would decide just as quickly, and just as decisively answer: at 35 florins. From this indisputable fact, Dietzel has apparently gotten the impression that the explanation of the marginal-value theorists, which even in these cases comes back to some marginal utility, is not natural or true to nature, but makes “terrible” detours by means of a truly superfluous “jeu d’esprit spirituel” [“game of intellectual solitaire”]. What justification does this impression have?
    It has no justification. It stems from a confusion between that which individuals do or have to do, if they want to estimate the value of a good in practice, and that which science has to do if it wants to explain the practical valuations themselves.
However costs do not tell a person how useful a good is to them.  A person buys a house near to where they work.  They do so clearly because that is more useful than a house very far away.

For example consider a set of cakes for sale in a shop.  I wish to buy a good cake.  I could look at the cost of each of the cakes and estimate that the quality is proportional to the cost.  "You get what you pay for" as they say.  I may then consider how much I would like a cake compared to money in my pocket and therefore decide on how much I want to spend.

It must be recognized though that if I do this I am relying on marginal decisions made by others.  If the expensive cakes are indeed better than the cheaper cakes then it is because other customers have acted differently to myself.  They have compared the quality and price of the cakes and bought on that basis rather than estimating.  If this competition did not occur then the makers of poor cakes could charge the same price for them as the makes of good cakes charge regardless of labour expended in either case.

Quote from: Psy
No engineer in the world decides on what material to use based on marginal decisions, they once again use LTV to balance utility with cost.
I am an engineer, I work for a very large company that you have probably heard of.  I certainly do use marginal decisions.

Quote from: Psy
The value of the commodity is known before the consumer buys it as it has been engineered just like the values of fictional goods in games.
No it isn't.  When myself and my colleague make a new product our employer has a target price.  However the business cannot force customers to buy at that price.  If customers don't pay it we must reduce it or cancel the product.  If customers buy large quantities we may increase the price.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: Current
Now, as you have said before, in Marxist theories the labour value "inhered" in a product is proportional to the exchange value of that product, the price.  A capitalist adds his "surplus" on top of that labour value.
No in LTV the capitalist subtracts surplus value, the difference from what workers produce and what they are paid.
That is what I mean.  I was describing your position here.

Quote from: Psy
Quote from: Current
You claim that administrative tasks managing the process do not add value but that tasks within the process do.  According to Marxist theory that implies that administrative tasks don't have an impact on exchange value, i.e. price.

But, how can that be.  In any sort of society administration of production processes is necessary, even in a Marxist one.  In a capitalist society the cost of administration must be born by the business.  If it cannot make enough profit to pay for administration then it will go bankrupt.  The cost of administration must be charged in the cost of products.  Competition comes into play in administration too.  If a business can achieve lower administration costs while keeping other factors similar then it can make higher profits, or charge lower prices and expand it's market share.  So, how can you say that only the process of production affects price?
Because it is not utility the consumer cares about
That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say about economics.  Of course the customer cares about utility.  He buys a good because it is useful.

Quote from: Psy
for example a person buying a TV doesn't care about the administration of the factory to produced it.
Of course not.  That doesn't mean that the administration of the factory doesn't play a part in the cost.  If the TV manufacturing business cannot charge a high enough price to cover it's administration cost then it will go bankrupt.

Quote from: Psy
It is also not utility that is very labor intensive, it really doesn't take much effort to maintain organization of production once workers understand the process.
I see you know little about this.  It takes a massive amount of effort to do this.  For large businesses it costs billions and requires thousands of staff.  The same is true of cooperative businesses.

Quote from: Psy
I don't see managers on the floor exerting energy, the farmer does so the farmers is doing much more then organizing nature.
Physical effort or mental effort?  Perhaps not the former, but certainly the later.  If those who only expend mental effort are not really "creating value" then how are engineers creating value?  They only exert mental effort most of the time.  Weeks go by inbetween times I build prototypes, does this mean I'm not working in the interim?

Quote from: Psy
The paper doesn't create new value it doesn't exert energy,
Certainly not.  However, accord to LTV value is "inherred" in it.  So, what happens to that inherred value when it is used by an engineer compared to a manager?

Quote from: Psy
the act of a engineer using the paper create value to what the engineer is designing, while a manager using the paper just to manage production is simply overhead.
Overhead must still be paid for.  Good management will produce good results and bad management bad results, the same is true of engineering.  So, where is the difference?

Also, engineering is often accounted for as "overhead".  Accounting differentiations such as what "overhead" is don't necessarily reflect economic differences.



Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Psy on July 18, 2009, 11:32:11 EDT
Quote from: Psy
But consumers try to maximize utility and to some extent succeed, that must mean consumers have a value system that is simple enough for a human to maximize utility to some extent.
Indeed.  However prioritizing spending is not difficult to understand.  I expect you do it yourself.

Also, it is not a criticism of marginalism to say that people use cost in their decisions.  Bohm-Bawerk wrote:
Quote from: Bohm-Bawerk
In practice, we stop innumerable times with a valuation based on costs. If one asks me how highly I value a winter coat, that I can buy at any moment at a cost of 40 florins, I will answer without hesitation and without further speculation: at 40 florins. If it were to cost only 35 florins, so I would decide just as quickly, and just as decisively answer: at 35 florins. From this indisputable fact, Dietzel has apparently gotten the impression that the explanation of the marginal-value theorists, which even in these cases comes back to some marginal utility, is not natural or true to nature, but makes “terrible” detours by means of a truly superfluous “jeu d’esprit spirituel” [“game of intellectual solitaire”]. What justification does this impression have?
    It has no justification. It stems from a confusion between that which individuals do or have to do, if they want to estimate the value of a good in practice, and that which science has to do if it wants to explain the practical valuations themselves.
However costs do not tell a person how useful a good is to them.  A person buys a house near to where they work.  They do so clearly because that is more useful than a house very far away.

For example consider a set of cakes for sale in a shop.  I wish to buy a good cake.  I could look at the cost of each of the cakes and estimate that the quality is proportional to the cost.  "You get what you pay for" as they say.  I may then consider how much I would like a cake compared to money in my pocket and therefore decide on how much I want to spend.

It must be recognized though that if I do this I am relying on marginal decisions made by others.  If the expensive cakes are indeed better than the cheaper cakes then it is because other customers have acted differently to myself.  They have compared the quality and price of the cakes and bought on that basis rather than estimating.  If this competition did not occur then the makers of poor cakes could charge the same price for them as the makes of good cakes charge regardless of labour expended in either case.
Yet consumers go farther then that and value money based on their wages which means they value cost based on labor. 

Quote from: Current
Quote from: Psy
No engineer in the world decides on what material to use based on marginal decisions, they once again use LTV to balance utility with cost.
I am an engineer, I work for a very large company that you have probably heard of.  I certainly do use marginal decisions.
Doubt it, most likely you just think you do yet still simply problem solve to come up with a solution to having a certain utility at a certain cost else you not a very good engineer since a main task of engineers is maximizing utility at a certain cost.  A engineer doesn't decide if functionality gets implemented into the produce based on marginal value but based on LTV (roughly how much labor would be required to implement the function over what the estimated utility of the function).

For example if you were designing a digital stereo system deciding the level of distortion in the system wouldn't be decided by personal preference or marginal comparison but simple LTV maximization of utility, engineers would analyze labor cost and find when they start getting diminishing returns (when distortion starts going down less compared to the increased labor value that would be invested) then engineer various models of the stereo for various price points.  Hell most business simulators follow LTV maximization as most business text books use LTV maximization of utility rather then marginal comparison (meaning managers are thought to use LTV).

Quote from: Current
Quote from: Psy
The value of the commodity is known before the consumer buys it as it has been engineered just like the values of fictional goods in games.
No it isn't.  When myself and my colleague make a new product our employer has a target price.  However the business cannot force customers to buy at that price.  If customers don't pay it we must reduce it or cancel the product.  If customers buy large quantities we may increase the price.
LTV covers that, the product has the value that was engineered into it, when it fails the value wasn't wrong it is devalued due to over-production localized to that product.   

Quote from: Current
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: Current
Now, as you have said before, in Marxist theories the labour value "inhered" in a product is proportional to the exchange value of that product, the price.  A capitalist adds his "surplus" on top of that labour value.
No in LTV the capitalist subtracts surplus value, the difference from what workers produce and what they are paid.
That is what I mean.  I was describing your position here.
Marxist theory doesn't have capitalists adding surplus value onto of labor value and capitalist theory doesn't consider labor value to be linked to commodity values (as that would still mean lay-offs and wage cuts devalues commodities which capitalists deny)

Quote from: Current
Quote from: Psy
Quote from: Current
You claim that administrative tasks managing the process do not add value but that tasks within the process do.  According to Marxist theory that implies that administrative tasks don't have an impact on exchange value, i.e. price.

But, how can that be.  In any sort of society administration of production processes is necessary, even in a Marxist one.  In a capitalist society the cost of administration must be born by the business.  If it cannot make enough profit to pay for administration then it will go bankrupt.  The cost of administration must be charged in the cost of products.  Competition comes into play in administration too.  If a business can achieve lower administration costs while keeping other factors similar then it can make higher profits, or charge lower prices and expand it's market share.  So, how can you say that only the process of production affects price?
Because it is not utility the consumer cares about
That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say about economics.  Of course the customer cares about utility.  He buys a good because it is useful.
I meant that the utility created by administration is not something consumers care about.  This is why when people research products they rarely investigate the administration.

Quote from: Current
Quote from: Psy
for example a person buying a TV doesn't care about the administration of the factory to produced it.
Of course not.  That doesn't mean that the administration of the factory doesn't play a part in the cost.  If the TV manufacturing business cannot charge a high enough price to cover it's administration cost then it will go bankrupt.
But administration doesn't add value to the commodity.  Lets take another example lets say you want someone to pave your driveway you wouldn't value the pavers with more overhead more then the pavers with no overhead as the workers self-manage.

Quote from: Current
Quote from: Psy
It is also not utility that is very labor intensive, it really doesn't take much effort to maintain organization of production once workers understand the process.
I see you know little about this.  It takes a massive amount of effort to do this.  For large businesses it costs billions and requires thousands of staff.  The same is true of cooperative businesses.

Quote from: Psy
I don't see managers on the floor exerting energy, the farmer does so the farmers is doing much more then organizing nature.
Physical effort or mental effort?  Perhaps not the former, but certainly the later.  If those who only expend mental effort are not really "creating value" then how are engineers creating value?  They only exert mental effort most of the time.  Weeks go by inbetween times I build prototypes, does this mean I'm not working in the interim?
Mangers rarely exert much mental effort that is valuable, many of the utility they create is counter-productive and workers waste mental effort finding ways around the bureaucracy managed by managers to meet their quota.  Even when managers do their job they don't increase the value of the community but lower it as they would have lowered the labor value inherited in it, for example if a manager make a factory produce the same commodity with 1 less worker then the value of the commodities would devalue the amount that worker produced.

Quote from: Current
Quote from: Psy
The paper doesn't create new value it doesn't exert energy,
Certainly not.  However, accord to LTV value is "inherred" in it.  So, what happens to that inherred value when it is used by an engineer compared to a manager?
That inherited value doesn't change even it is not used at all, the difference is new value created.

Quote from: Current
Quote from: Psy
the act of a engineer using the paper create value to what the engineer is designing, while a manager using the paper just to manage production is simply overhead.
Overhead must still be paid for.  Good management will produce good results and bad management bad results, the same is true of engineering.  So, where is the difference?

Also, engineering is often accounted for as "overhead".  Accounting differentiations such as what "overhead" is don't necessarily reflect economic differences.
Engineering through mental efforts created utility through designing the product and the means of its production.  The utility of good engineering is passed onto the consumer, good management devalues the commodity due to lowering the effort required to produce the commodity.  Meaning the better a engineer is the more valuable the commodity becomes, the better management is the less valuable the commodity becomes.


Title: Re: Why are these forums dead?
Post by: Eon on August 23, 2009, 13:49:51 EDT
I can't believe I'm doing this. Guess I was bored. I mean, really bored.

This thread is a perfect example of one of the reasons I stopped posting here. How almost every single discussion inevitably gets derailed into an endless debate over the virtues of left-wing over right-wing economic theories and vice versa. I simply lost interest in liberals constantly arguing against libertarians without anything really being accomplished. I especially lost interest in constantly being accused of being a socialist because I don't hold to right-wing, free enterprise economic values.

The other reason, honestly, I grew to seriously dislike too many people here. Staying would've just caused me unnecessary stress I could've avoided and used up too much of my time, something I wasn't willing to do, not in my final year of university and when I had studies, a real social life, and a webcomic to stay on top of.

So, there's my reasons. Boring, repetitive topics and too much enmity between forumers. Also, the scant few religious debates weren't quite as fun once Darkeforce got banned.