6 ms·

> if someone else makes money it somehow precludes others from doing it? There is an easy way to see that and it is if the median inflation-adjusted hourly wa

> if someone else makes money it somehow precludes others from doing it? There is an easy way to see that and it is if the median inflation-adjusted hourly wage has risen in the US since the early 1970s. Or if inflation-adjusted weekly earnings have risen. They have not, with GDP growth, both have fallen. That this even has to be discussed shows the deep control those heirs who expropriate surplus labor time from workers have over discourse, the media, forums like this (run and controlled by an accelerator) etc. Workers create wealth at a mature company. Some of that pays the electricity bills etc., but then the rest goes to either dividends to the heirs, or to wages. That is the "preclusion". The heirs expropriate the profits of the surplus labor time from the workers creating the wealth. They are shorted on their wages. Sometimes this is explicit like the cabal between Steve Jobs, Eric Schmidt that came out in the lawsuit. Insofar as Bill Gates and invention - it takes a hell of a lot of gullibility to swallow the fantasy you concocted. Kemeny and Kurtz created BASIC. Gates hacks into a military research computer at Harvard and steals computer time from it according to Paul Allen's book (and Harvard admin found out and had proceedings) - they port BASIC to the Altair. Then IBM comes to Microsoft. IBM got wealthy with computers on taxpayer funded government contracts and a monopoly which was lightly overseen. Gates's mother is on the United Way board with IBM CEO Opel who helps makes this meeting happen. Microsoft sells Seattle Computer Product's Qdos to IBM (Gary Kildall said it was a complete ripoff of his Drdos). A purchased ripoff of another product, sold thanks to family connections. So much for "invention". At times like the current one, with real wages falling since the early 1970s despite economic growth, that this is even discussed is a sign of how the heirs have bought and paid for the narrative as well.

smokeyj 8y ago
If someone invents a tool and sells it for a profit - who was exploited? Is it not possible for everyone to be richer than they started and also create wealth?? The question was really simple. Your answer is the kind that inevitably ends with "you just have to read Das Kapital". That is not an answer.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  >If someone invents a tool and sells it for a profit - who was exploited? Nobody, and Marx doesn't say that anyone is in such a case. >Is it not possible for everyone to be richer than they started and also create wealth?? In some way, it is possible - after all, the worker is richer than he was before (he has more money thanks to his wage) as is the capitalist (who has made money from the sale). Now what wealth is created? Arguably, social wealth in the case of new technology being developed, for example. But Marx doesn't deal with this concept of "wealth" or even immediately money, he deals with the concept of value, which works at a different level of abstraction to money. The value-form only becomes the price-form, they're not identical. I'd suggest looking up theories of exploitation as they have been figured in Marxisms that don't rely on a labour theory of value. It's too much[0] to summarize in one HN comment, but you don't need to read Capital either (though it would be helpful). [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/
  - chlvsl 8y ago
    Marx believed in the time theory of value, yes. He believed that if you took 100 hours to make a chair then its inherently worth more than someone who spent 10 hours on a chair. However, consumers select for quality - nobody cares how long it took you to do. The fact that his entire ideology is built on this belief is worrying for any modern followers of his cause.
- peisistratos 8y ago
  > If someone invents a tool and sells it for a profit - who was exploited? Is it not possible for everyone to be richer than they started and also create wealth?? As I said, when, after the electricity bill etc. is paid, created wealth is split between dividends to heirs and wages to those who worked and created the wealth. If in your hypothetical situation there is no split - if the person who worked and created wealth keeps everything - there is no expropriation. The expropriation is the last few hours of work he does, of the wealth he creates - none of it going to him, the one who created the wealth and did the work. All of the profit going to the heir. But if there is no split, this expropriation does not happen.
pitaj 8y ago
I'll never get tired of hearing "wage slavery", "exploitation", "surplus labor value" etc from idiots who are still clinging to the labor theory of value.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  It's strange that you dismiss a heavily researched area well respected in modern philosophy and heterodox economics as being "idiots".[0] You may say their research is flawed, but there is no grounds to call such people (who usually hold PhDs in economics and work at world-tier universities) "idiots". [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18490388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18490388

smokeyj 8y ago

If someone invents a tool and sells it for a profit - who was exploited? Is it not possible for everyone to be richer than they started and also create wealth?? The question was really simple. Your answer is the kind that inevitably ends with "you just have to read Das Kapital". That is not an answer.

claudiawerner 8y ago
>If someone invents a tool and sells it for a profit - who was exploited? Nobody, and Marx doesn't say that anyone is in such a case. >Is it not possible for everyone to be richer than they started and also create wealth?? In some way, it is possible - after all, the worker is richer than he was before (he has more money thanks to his wage) as is the capitalist (who has made money from the sale). Now what wealth is created? Arguably, social wealth in the case of new technology being developed, for example. But Marx doesn't deal with this concept of "wealth" or even immediately money, he deals with the concept of value, which works at a different level of abstraction to money. The value-form only becomes the price-form, they're not identical. I'd suggest looking up theories of exploitation as they have been figured in Marxisms that don't rely on a labour theory of value. It's too much[0] to summarize in one HN comment, but you don't need to read Capital either (though it would be helpful). [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/
- chlvsl 8y ago
  Marx believed in the time theory of value, yes. He believed that if you took 100 hours to make a chair then its inherently worth more than someone who spent 10 hours on a chair. However, consumers select for quality - nobody cares how long it took you to do. The fact that his entire ideology is built on this belief is worrying for any modern followers of his cause.
peisistratos 8y ago
> If someone invents a tool and sells it for a profit - who was exploited? Is it not possible for everyone to be richer than they started and also create wealth?? As I said, when, after the electricity bill etc. is paid, created wealth is split between dividends to heirs and wages to those who worked and created the wealth. If in your hypothetical situation there is no split - if the person who worked and created wealth keeps everything - there is no expropriation. The expropriation is the last few hours of work he does, of the wealth he creates - none of it going to him, the one who created the wealth and did the work. All of the profit going to the heir. But if there is no split, this expropriation does not happen.

pitaj 8y ago

I'll never get tired of hearing "wage slavery", "exploitation", "surplus labor value" etc from idiots who are still clinging to the labor theory of value.

claudiawerner 8y ago
It's strange that you dismiss a heavily researched area well respected in modern philosophy and heterodox economics as being "idiots".[0] You may say their research is flawed, but there is no grounds to call such people (who usually hold PhDs in economics and work at world-tier universities) "idiots". [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18490388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18490388