Time Value of Money

[Flip McWho]

Aye, if something was valued in how many hours it took to make it means somebody would get paid more for making a sh*tty product that took twice as long as someone who made a better product taking half that time. Isn't there something counter-initiative about this?

[Japher]

not in commieland

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Thats why I feel the communist economic system would not work. People have no reward for inventing new things or working harder. Basically there is no incentive to set yourself apart from the crowd. Communist economics could only work in a stagnate society. Hmmm Possibly that is what the end of history means. Isn't the communist paradise supposed to come about when history ends?

Again this is old territory. vel went at kid for something like 200 posts on this point. The end result was kid continued to assert that vel would be "exploiting" a worker if he made an invention that increased productivity 10 fold and then required rent of the worker to use the invention. According to kid this would be true even if the worker made 2 or 3 times the income of a worker who did not use the invention.

Go take a look at the rent is unfair tax thread and sequels for a lot on this theme

[Moral Hazard]

Are you new at this??

Yes, If I had already beat him then I wouldn't be doing this. Im actually done here. I see that he is beaten, Im just waiting for him to make a further ass of himself

[Flip McWho]

Price is set by desirability and availability, not just by worth.

If you wanna take a totally unmaterialist approach to it then nothing has inherent worth except a clean soul

Yeah, ok, I agree with the counter to competition. The more population means the more people that would work in certain industries thus giving the ability to create more competition. However as you said there is no way to predict this and it wouldn't be in a linear fashion.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Aye, if something was valued in how many hours it took to make it means somebody would get paid more for making a sh*tty product that took twice as long as someone who made a better product taking half that time. Isn't there something counter-initiative about this?

yup---

But were you expecting reality and sense from kid?

[Flip McWho]

Again this is old territory. vel went at kid for something like 200 posts on this point. The end result was kid continued to assert that vel would be "exploiting" a worker if he made an invention that increased productivity 10 fold and then required rent of the worker to use the invention. According to kid this would be true even if the worker made 2 or 3 times the income of a worker who did not use the invention.

Go take a look at the rent is unfair tax thread and sequels for a lot on this theme

So this is basically stuff then. That's cool, I need to hone some skills in economic debating. I just don't see how commies can ignore this. I don't see how your exploiting the worker either. Some other guy invented the machine and not employing the machine would be an exploitation of the person who invented the machine. But then I suppose they are the capitalist oppressors and they deserve to be exploited. Its a very fine line today between who the capitalist is and who the proletariat is. You could argue that the manager of a blah store is a labourer as he is working for the people who own his company higher up. Where does the labourer end and the capitalist begin?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Moral Hazard

Are you new at this??

Yes, If I had already beat him then I wouldn't be doing this. Im actually done here. I see that he is beaten, Im just waiting for him to make a further ass of himself

See, many of the veterans here just don't read these threads anymore since its same old same old. But I missed a lot of the early ones and still like intruding into kid's fantasies. Go at him a bit more and you too can get ignored.

He probably didn't like it when I questioned how he could be"in poverty" and yet had so much time to be on the internet.

[Japher]

The more population means the more people that would work in certain industries thus giving the ability to create more competition. However as you said there is no way to predict this and it wouldn't be in a linear fashion.

I don't think there is a way, though there are models that will try. I think the oil prices right now is one such example of price not reflecting value, or is it price finally reflecting value? Who would of predicted the price hike? Not only has polotics played a part in it due to the war in Iraq and Russian grip on whatever that company is called (keeps slipping my mind, Yukos?), but mother nature had a hand in it to by ceasing production in the gulf with her hurricanes... predictable?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Flip McWho

. Where does the labourer end and the capitalist begin?

According to kid-- people who provide money are capitalists and people that provide labour are the labourers. In theory a person can fulfill both roles at the same time.

Kid just places ZERO value on the provision of capital-- even apparently if it was capital accrued through things he accepts as "working"

[Flip McWho]

Yeah thats the thing. Certain aspects you can predict from. For example the war in Iraq was bound to affect oil production and price in some way or another, as well as the russian grip. However things like a hurricane and other random factors can keep things unpredictable. Of course that doesn't mean there is no worth in trying to predict outcomes.

[Flip McWho]

According to kid-- people who provide money are capitalists and people that provide labour are the labourers. In theory a person can fulfill both roles at the same time.

Well that means that everyone is both a capitalist and a labourer as everyone provides labour at some point and also provide money as well, sometimes in less than overt ways (e.g. if you save money at a bank technically your are investing money, even if you are not aware of it). So basically there is no division between capitalist and labourer effectively rendering the communist argument null and void. At least in first world countries. Is this logical?

[David Floyd]

Look, guys, Kid doesn't understand a very simple concept regarding value in the realm of economics.

Simply put, a good or service is only as valuable as is agreed on by the people who are giving/receiving the good/service. Period. No other definition of value makes any sense - or at least, no other definition of value is in any way useful. An item's value is simply the "price" (be it in dollars or whatever medium of exchange) that those who want the item (or service) agree to pay, and what the seller chooses to accept.

In your world, Kid, an hour of labor (say, digging ditches), may be worth $40. But that's irrelevant if the person who employs ditch diggers disagrees, and only thinks it's worth $15/hour. If those who want a job disagree that the worth of this particular job is $15/hour, then they don't have to - and won't - take it. Now, you might argue that in a time of low unemployment, or in a situation where the person who needs a job is poor, they have no choice. But you're wrong - that person has decided that the job of digging ditches is worth $15, because of the benefits of getting that money (ie, not starving). They might want more money, but make no mistake, they are also agreeing that $15 is the value of the labor.

Take another example. Actually, let's not, because you see the point. The definition of value is ultimately governed by a)people's perceptions and other relative factors, and b)the law of supply and demand. The concept of value is NOT absolute - any other viewpoint does not make sense.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher
But the gold still doesn't cost 20cents an ounce like it did back in 1849... why is that?

Why was there a change in price? What does it matter? Whe're talking about value.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Flubber


Are you new at this?? vel and I went at him for 2 threads on this point . Kid started by claiming that everyone that did "real work" should get the same wage but then waffled a bit. Thats around when he began ignoring me I think

Ahem, you had others helping.