It's true. I'm a capitalist pigdog type :nod:

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Kidicious
If you paid people what they were worth you would go out of business.

You need to learn some basic economics. Seriously.

[Arrian]

Very funny, Main_Brain.

As for the rest... no surprises here.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher

I make extremely good money for my age. Assuredly more than you do now.

The name of the game of capitalism isn't paying people less than they're worth. It's selling things for more than it costs you to procure it. You have some fundamental failings in your understanding of the world.

1) Things are made out of labor. No further explation should be necessary. But then in your case it wouldn't even help.

2) There is no reason why a capitalist would treat his labor any differently than any of his other inputs.

This discussion is over. You bring nothing. You just play stupid.

[Sirotnikov]

Things are made out of labor.

So kid, could you tell us what is the absolute price of labor?

I mean, how much is a man's hour of work worth, in absolute terms?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov



So kid, could you tell us what is the absolute price of labor?

I mean, how much is a man's hour of work worth, in absolute terms?

No, and neither can you. Your answer to that question should be what the two parties agree to, isn't it?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
This discussion is over. You bring nothing. You just play stupid.

You may want to look up the definition of "worth".

[Sirotnikov]

No, and neither can you.

So what's the point of arguing about whether someone is getting their true worth of money?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Your work is worth more to the capitalist

And teh capitalists money is worth more to you than your work, which is why you agree to teh trade

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

So what's the point of arguing about whether someone is getting their true worth of money?

Because they either are or they are not. Why should there be a problem with fingering absolute values?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by LordShiva


And teh capitalists money is worth more to you than your work, which is why you agree to teh trade

Oh, you are as bad as Asher. Let's see if you can reason better than him.

If I offer you both a nickle and a dime and you choose the nickle because it is bigger does that mean the nickle is worth more than the dime? No. So just because someone agrees to work for a certain wage that doesn't mean that their labor is worth that much.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Oh, you are as bad as Asher. Let's see if you can reason better than him.

If I offer you both a nickle and a dime and you choose the nickle because it is bigger does that mean the nickle is worth more than the dime? No. So just because someone agrees to work for a certain wage that doesn't mean that their labor is worth that much.

You of course understand that a nickel is worth more than a dime due to a social construct and an appropriate law in your society, right?

You keep attributing vague concepts of objective value on stuff that do not have objective value.


Let's agree for the sake of example that you have a single cow skin, and a suitcase filled with 1,000,000 dollars.

Then you go to some jungle in south america, find a local tribe and give them a choise between a suitcase worth of cash, and cow skin.

Guess what are they going to take? The cow skin.

And why is that? Because the cow skin is worth more... (dramatic pause) to them.

That is because value attached to objects is forever subjective, and changes in time too.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
You of course understand that a nickel is worth more than a dime due to a social construct and an appropriate law in your society, right?

That is incorrect. A dime is worth twice as much as a nickle because it commands twice as much labor. You can pass a law to reverse the values of the two, but then a nickle would be twice as valuable as a dime because it commands twice as much labor.

You keep attributing vague concepts of objective value on stuff that do not have objective value.


Let's agree for the sake of example that you have a single cow skin, and a suitcase filled with 1,000,000 dollars.

Then you go to some jungle in south america, find a local tribe and give them a choise between a suitcase worth of cash, and cow skin.

Guess what are they going to take? The cow skin.

And why is that? Because the cow skin is worth more... (dramatic pause) to them.

That is because value attached to objects is forever subjective, and changes in time too.

The cow skin is not worth more. The tribesman just think it is. If they also believe in fairies do you think that fairies exist?

The cash does have an objective value, because if the tribesman has the same knowledge as everyone else they would know that the cowskin is not more valuable.

[One of the many]

Whatever wuss-socialism your educational institute practises cannot possibly undermine the transnational structural power of capital and its affiliated neo-liberal orthodox political economy infested supernational institutions sucking the boots of the G7-group.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The cow skin is not worth more. The tribesman just think it is.

Something only is only as valuable as people think it is. If the tribesmen think cow skin is valuable, then BAM! in the area they live in it will be.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The cash does have an objective value, because if the tribesman has the same knowledge as everyone else they would know that the cowskin is not more valuable.

Yes, because in teh middle of a forest some pieces of paper with pictures on them are of objectively high value