Let the Good Times Roll! Or, Tonight We're Gonna Party Like It's 1929

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
So the communist claim is that only labor creates wealth where as capital is a labor multiplier? The seems like a self serving argument.

It's pretty obvious that capital will create welaah only if it is put to use. And how do you call the act of putting it to use? Labour. Duh.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Except for all the lowly workers at those oil power plants. And what if I invent a robot than can do all manual labor (including its own self-assembly). Mankind would be infinitely better off, yet that would replace almost all low-paying jobs.

You can't make something for nothing, those robots have to be maintained,they will need resources, your self-assembly will fail,and so forth. But you shifted jobs from lower skilled work to higher skilled work.

Of course, if the original workers are cheaper then your robot it is going nowhere.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
no kidding, i agree, but when you compare pure labor (digging with fingernails) with labor + capital, you realize that you can create more wealth digging a hole with a shovel. thus, labor is not the only creator of wealth. the difference in wealth between what you dug with your fingernails and what you dug with a shovel is the wealth created by the shovel.

I disagree. The wealth created by the shovel is equal to the work put into building the shovel compared to the labor required to dig holes.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
So the communist claim is that only labor creates wealth where as capital is a labor multiplier? The seems like a self serving argument.

Building a shovel and putting it to use is a labor multiplier. Telling someone to do something is not necessarily labor however, which is the point. Teaching someone how to work better is labor, but just putting a dollar in the bank is not.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Dauphin


What about automated processes that require little to no labour presence but instead replace manual labour or computation?

It still depends on quite a bit of manual labor, although the final process maybe very much automated.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

éh spiff, inscris-toi ici vite www.gnoodiplo.com, mois je suis le Kirghizistan.

[MRT144]

this is why i want to become a cat burglar and steal the riches of the rich. Ill be putting it back into the economy so it's a good thing!

[Whoha]

but then the people who's products you buy will be rich, then you'll have to steal from them.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
éh spiff, inscris-toi ici vite www.gnoodiplo.com, mois je suis le Kirghizistan.

Merci de la proposition, mais désolé, je peux pas m'engager sur des projets en ce moment

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It still depends on quite a bit of manual labor, although the final process maybe very much automated.

You replace a secretary who was only employed to take dictation with a computer that has voice recognition software. You have now replaced her labour with a capital item that performs the same action. You could argue that without a person to dictate, no work is done, but then it would necessarily imply that the secretary was not performing labour either.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Dauphin


You replace a secretary who was only employed to take dictation with a computer that has voice recognition software. You have now replaced her labour with a capital item that performs the same action. You could argue that without a person to dictate, no work is done, but then it would necessarily imply that the secretary was not performing labour either.

It took labor to program the software. The programmers had to be trained etc..

[Dauphin]

So no wealth can created by the actions of the capital after all input of the original labour is complete?

Do you really believe that someone who writes a programme and builds the machine has all rights to benefits derived from the use of said machine and programme if no labour is required to use it?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Dauphin
So no wealth can created by the actions of the capital after all input of the original labour is complete?

If you mean money, then no.

Do you really believe that someone who writes a programme and builds the machine has all rights to benefits derived from the use of said machine and programme?

No. In the hypothetical case that you presented some labor is still performed by the operators correct, and the operators are compensated. But the programmers are also compensated, as they should be.

[Dauphin]

The operators are just telling the machine what to write, you said in a prior post that telling someone what to do is not labour. Which is it to be?

[Dauphin]

And is the machine performing 'labour' or not? (as opposed to being a mulitplier)