Time Value of Money

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, I haven't gotten into it with the deluded one for a quite a while, so I didn't know who was ripping him a new one .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flip McWho


Ok how about this. Labour has no inherent value because the monetary system in which this value resides is an artificial construct and as such has an artificial value in monetary terms given to it by market forces i.e. supply and demand.

Sounds to me like you are talking about wages not the value of labor. Here's the difference. Everything is created by work. The sum of the price of everything is the value of that work. Wages are just what has been decided in the market as compensation for labor. Either way you look at it labor has in inherent value.

[Flip McWho]

Ok then, but how do you measure that inherent value? and for that matter what the hell is that inherent value?

If there is no way to measure that inherent value then what are we debating for? Besides the fact that i'm bored.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Cars are created with labor, Imran. Duh.

They are also created with capital, Solomwi. Duh.

Try to build a car without capital and see how well it turns out .

That's entirely possible Imran.

[Flip McWho]

Well if you wanna get into the nitty gritties you'd need capital somewhere in the process, even if its just to make the steel for the car or something. Though I agree it's possible to make a car without capital.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Woooo... wooden cars... we pedal with our feet like the Flintstones!

Where did the steel body originally come from? What about the parts? The muffler? The engine? Oh, I forgot, the automakers have one guy in the back with a hammer making these things .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Ok then, but how do you measure that inherent value? and for that matter what the hell is that inherent value?

Money is fine. If labor creates all value then the inherent value of labor is the aggregate production of all goods and services in the economy. Right?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Woooo... wooden cars... we pedal with our feet like the Flintstones!

Where did the steel body originally come from? What about the parts? The muffler? The engine? Oh, I forgot, the automakers have one guy in the back with a hammer making these things .

I meant financial capital. That's what we're talking about. Try to stay with me.

[Flip McWho]

So with money you are talking about wages yes?

But labour isn't the aggregate production of all goods and services. Other factors go into making those goods and services. Hell certain services like parking meters for example don't even need labourers. Parking meters are apart of the aggregate goods and services. So no, not right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I meant financial capital. That's what we're talking about.

No, we were talking about your ridiculous assertion that labor is the only production function that matters in value creation.

Redefining the debate when you've lost? Frankly I can't say I'm suprised .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I meant financial capital. That's what we're talking about.

No, we were talking about your ridiculous assertion that labor is the only production function that matters in value creation.

Redefining the debate when you've lost? Frankly I can't say I'm suprised .

I'm the creator of this thread idiot. I define the debate. You're the redefiner.

[Imran Siddiqui]

When the almightly thread starter realizes he has lost the debate, he can redefine it in whatever way he wishes and say that is the 'true' defintion. Befitting a communist.

Btw, you defined the debate in your first post, saying "only work creates value" (which was the point of that small first sentance). Oh, and the thread doesn't belong to you and the debate can be defined with or without you.

Sorry, I hope your overinflated ego can take it .

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
So with money you are talking about wages yes?

No. Money can be used to measure the value of labor. Wages certainly are not the measure of the value of labor, only the price paid for labor.

But labour isn't the aggregate production of all goods and services. Other factors go into making those goods and services. Hell certain services like parking meters for example don't even need labourers. Parking meters are apart of the aggregate goods and services. So no, not right.

Ah... Parking meters don't create value. That's not the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'm talking about productive work. There is all kinds of work that produces very little or no value. Like sales. I used to sell Kirby vacumms. The managers used to tell us to create value when we were selling the vacumms. The vacumms cost $1700. Holy ****! They aren't worth that much. That's not creating value. It's just ripping people off.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
When the almightly thread starter realizes he has lost the debate, he can redefine it in whatever way he wishes and say that is the 'true' defintion. Befitting a communist.

Btw, you defined the debate in your first post, saying "only work creates value" (which was the point of that small first sentance). Oh, and the thread doesn't belong to you and the debate can be defined with or without you.

Sorry, I hope your overinflated ego can take it .

I'm sorry but it still stands that you are trying to redefine the debate. Only losers do that. If you can't win the debate the way it is defined, well ......

[Flip McWho]

Kid, are you talking about the utility value of the work?