Time Value of Money

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Well you admit land is a factor of production?

Well then land is also a factor of production so land is a consideration in the value as well. Therefore labour is not the creating of the value as the good or service wasn't just created by labour.

Land is more of a parameter. There is a value to it, because it is needed, like unextracted raw materials. That value isn't created (at least not by man). It just exists.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Iskandar Reza
I think what he means is labor=energy. That seems to be the only way any of his arguments make better sense. Well, I'm off to play SMAX.

[Flip McWho]

So why can't the same argument be given to labour? Labour is needed. Labour is just a parameter to the making of whatever product/service.

[David Floyd]

It does NOT produce anything of value in the economy. It is a transfer of income. One person used to get value from the money, but now another person gets value from the money.

So you don't think that the transfer of money can lead to greater production/wealth creation? Weird.

And there you go again, tying value to some (undefined) absolute...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
I'd agree with that. But what happens in the instance where a machine is the only factor in production? Or if the only labour involvement is someone standing there makind sure the machine doesn't break down.

Labor builds and maintains the machines.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
So why can't the same argument be given to labour? Labour is needed. Labour is just a parameter to the making of whatever product/service.

It's just silly to say that land creates things. Even if that were true, so we compensate the land?

[Flip McWho]

So? The labour to build and maintain those machines just exist. What makes you think there is a utility value involved?

[Flip McWho]

Land helps creates things. Just like labour does. Labour helps create things usually existing raw materials/land/whatever else goes into the product.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So you don't think that the transfer of money can lead to greater production/wealth creation? Weird.

Absolutely it can.

[Flip McWho]

Do you define peoples perception as smoke and mirrors?

[David Floyd]

OK, just making sure you could at least see that point - you were implying otherwise, at least as I understood you.

Labor builds and maintains the machines.

So do you claim that being paid a wage to maintain someone else's machine should give you a share in the ownership of what the machine produces?

[Kidlicious]

I'm getting too tired now. I'll talk to you guys tomorrow about this.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So do you claim that being paid a wage to maintain someone else's machine should give you a share in the ownership of what the machine produces?

Yeah.

Off to bed now. I know there will be something to respond to about this tomorrow.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Do you define peoples perception as smoke and mirrors?

What are you trying to do to me? I'm very tired. I can't figure that out right now.

I'll talk to you tomorrow.

[David Floyd]

Yeah.

As an aside, then, would it be fair to give them a share in the ownership, and not pay them a wage? Sounds like giving them both is double dipping...

In any case, the point of a wage is to compensate someone for labor performed, in this case, maintaining machines. Sure, in this case, without the people to maintain the machines, the machines could not function, but that doesn't automatically confer ownership to the maintenance guy - all it does is entitle him to negotiate for a wage in exchange for labor. If he believes that his wage should include an ownership stake, then he'll simply be out of a job and someone else will be hired, who negotiates more reasonably. Remember, without the machine, the maintenance guy wouldn't have a job. Computers need computer techs, but computer techs also need computers (sure, they could hypothetically do something else, but whatever that "something else" is, they still need it). Strikes me as sort of a wash:

1)Man invests capital to build machine
2)Man realizes he needs a specialist to maintain machine
3)Specialist needs job
4)Man decides that the value of a working machine outweighs the value of the probable wage he will pay the specialist
5)Specialist decides that the value he sees in his wage is sufficient to justify maintaining the machine.

Why should the specialist get anything further than a wage? It really isn't fair - his wage already compensates him for his labor.