5 ms·

In my mind a "market systems" implicitly includes prices which means there would then be profit and loss. I could imagine a market of 100% barter and no general

In my mind a "market systems" implicitly includes prices which means there would then be profit and loss. I could imagine a market of 100% barter and no generally accepted currency but I do not think that is what most people mean when they use the term "market systems." There is a lot I'm unaware of, possibly market systems without prices is one of those things?

ianleeclark 7y ago
> In my mind a "market systems" implicitly includes prices which means there would then be profit and loss. Why does a price necessarily include a profit or a loss? This is a self-referential belief: my price includes a profit or loss because a prior price includes a profit or loss which would earlier ... etc, etc.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >Why does a price necessarily include a profit or a loss It includes a profit or a loss because you need to eat and provide for yourself. If you're making chairs but the cost of materials is larger than what you sell those chairs for, how are you going to provide for your family? If you want to save up for a house or a car, or family vacation, how are you going to do that if you don't sell your chairs with a surplus (i.e. a profit)? A market-based system necessarily implies a profit motive.
  - ianleeclark 7y ago
    > If you're making chairs but the cost of materials is larger than what you sell those chairs for, how are you going to provide for your family? This is the "self-referential" thing I was referring to. You're entering into this thought experiment with a pre-defined conception of how an economic mode of production must operate. You're presupposing the profit motive.
    - macspoofing 7y ago
      Feel free to suggest an alternative. The one that comes to mind is Communism (and its many flavours), and we've seen what a humanitarian and economic disaster that turns out to be.
      - ianleeclark 7y ago
        Political economy is a wide field with something for everyone. Consider it a choose your own adventure.
        macspoofing 7y ago
        Right. So no actual alternative.
macspoofing 7y ago
>I could imagine a market of 100% barter and no generally accepted currency Even under a barter system, there is an intrinsic profit. If you're a farmer, after you feed your family, what's leftover is the surplus (i.e. profit) that you use to trade for other essentials. The difference that matters between a currency system and a barter system is that bartering is less flexible (if someone doesn't want your apples for their furniture, you're not getting that furniture) - but the same forces apply.
kiliantics 7y ago
Profit is what's left over after all costs are taken out from the price, including labour costs. Profit, by definition, is what the capitalist gets to keep for having done nothing but owning the capital that was used to generate the profit. So like when Bezos makes $4M+ per hour, it's not a wage because he is not working for it, he could be sleeping or shitting and he would make the same money. He gets that just because it's his name on all of the capital that generates this profit. The actual work is being done by the many people working for amazon, peeing in bottles in fulfillment centres because of lack of breaks and whatnot. They get paid very little, so there are low costs, so there is great profit to line Bezos' pockets. Since co-ops like Mondragon need to compete with companies that are run like Bezos' in order to survive, they are under pressure to do similar things in their management structure, even though they want to share all "profit" with all workers, since all workers are owners (which is why it's not really "profit" for co-ops, since there are no non-working capitalists that earn it). Therefore, it is the profit motive, rather than the market system, which forces co-ops to act in ways that are inconsistent with their mission statements (worker control, fair pay, etc.)
- tathougies 7y ago
  And laborers generate a profit when their cost of living is below their total wage. At that point the cost of producing their labor (food, water, shelter) is below their revenue.
  - kiliantics 7y ago
    That is not a profit because it is not generated from capital. "Cost of producing labour" is not just food/water/shelter/etc. it is the literal time you have to give up in order to perform the labour. Someone who owns capital gets the profit which the capital generates at zero cost or time spent.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >Profit, by definition, is what the capitalist gets to keep for having done nothing but owning the capital that was used to generate the profit. No. That is a dishonest distortion. If providing and owning capital is such a nothing, why don't you try it and see how easy it is. Capitalization carries with it immense risk, which Communists conveniently ignore. Whereas the labourer gets a salary regardless of how the business performs, the one who capitalizes does not have this privilege. I've seen first hand how much work and how difficult it is to start and run a business. You only need to look at bankruptcy stats to see how many businesses fail and take down all the capital that was invested. It's not very pleasant to run a business, sink your life savings into it, only for it to go under with your savings and years of life. >So like when Bezos makes $4M+ per hour, That is another dishonest distortion. Bezos does not make $4M+ per hour. He holds stock in Amazon that rises in value at that rate (Amazon's actual profit is on the order of 2% after close to two decades of 0 profit). The value of stocks stems from the fact that there are people who are willing to buy it at that price. This carries risk, because this willingness by others to buy the stock is subject to many factors, and it can go down to zero. Again, if you think it's easy, feel free to dump your savings into Amazon stock and see how easy it is for you to live of that or even make a good return - though I'm sure in your fictitious communist reality this would mean you would make millions without doing anything!

ianleeclark 7y ago

> In my mind a "market systems" implicitly includes prices which means there would then be profit and loss. Why does a price necessarily include a profit or a loss? This is a self-referential belief: my price includes a profit or loss because a prior price includes a profit or loss which would earlier ... etc, etc.

macspoofing 7y ago
>Why does a price necessarily include a profit or a loss It includes a profit or a loss because you need to eat and provide for yourself. If you're making chairs but the cost of materials is larger than what you sell those chairs for, how are you going to provide for your family? If you want to save up for a house or a car, or family vacation, how are you going to do that if you don't sell your chairs with a surplus (i.e. a profit)? A market-based system necessarily implies a profit motive.
- ianleeclark 7y ago
  > If you're making chairs but the cost of materials is larger than what you sell those chairs for, how are you going to provide for your family? This is the "self-referential" thing I was referring to. You're entering into this thought experiment with a pre-defined conception of how an economic mode of production must operate. You're presupposing the profit motive.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    Feel free to suggest an alternative. The one that comes to mind is Communism (and its many flavours), and we've seen what a humanitarian and economic disaster that turns out to be.
    - ianleeclark 7y ago
      Political economy is a wide field with something for everyone. Consider it a choose your own adventure.
      - macspoofing 7y ago
        Right. So no actual alternative.

macspoofing 7y ago

>I could imagine a market of 100% barter and no generally accepted currency Even under a barter system, there is an intrinsic profit. If you're a farmer, after you feed your family, what's leftover is the surplus (i.e. profit) that you use to trade for other essentials. The difference that matters between a currency system and a barter system is that bartering is less flexible (if someone doesn't want your apples for their furniture, you're not getting that furniture) - but the same forces apply.

kiliantics 7y ago

Profit is what's left over after all costs are taken out from the price, including labour costs. Profit, by definition, is what the capitalist gets to keep for having done nothing but owning the capital that was used to generate the profit. So like when Bezos makes $4M+ per hour, it's not a wage because he is not working for it, he could be sleeping or shitting and he would make the same money. He gets that just because it's his name on all of the capital that generates this profit. The actual work is being done by the many people working for amazon, peeing in bottles in fulfillment centres because of lack of breaks and whatnot. They get paid very little, so there are low costs, so there is great profit to line Bezos' pockets. Since co-ops like Mondragon need to compete with companies that are run like Bezos' in order to survive, they are under pressure to do similar things in their management structure, even though they want to share all "profit" with all workers, since all workers are owners (which is why it's not really "profit" for co-ops, since there are no non-working capitalists that earn it). Therefore, it is the profit motive, rather than the market system, which forces co-ops to act in ways that are inconsistent with their mission statements (worker control, fair pay, etc.)

tathougies 7y ago
And laborers generate a profit when their cost of living is below their total wage. At that point the cost of producing their labor (food, water, shelter) is below their revenue.
- kiliantics 7y ago
  That is not a profit because it is not generated from capital. "Cost of producing labour" is not just food/water/shelter/etc. it is the literal time you have to give up in order to perform the labour. Someone who owns capital gets the profit which the capital generates at zero cost or time spent.
macspoofing 7y ago
>Profit, by definition, is what the capitalist gets to keep for having done nothing but owning the capital that was used to generate the profit. No. That is a dishonest distortion. If providing and owning capital is such a nothing, why don't you try it and see how easy it is. Capitalization carries with it immense risk, which Communists conveniently ignore. Whereas the labourer gets a salary regardless of how the business performs, the one who capitalizes does not have this privilege. I've seen first hand how much work and how difficult it is to start and run a business. You only need to look at bankruptcy stats to see how many businesses fail and take down all the capital that was invested. It's not very pleasant to run a business, sink your life savings into it, only for it to go under with your savings and years of life. >So like when Bezos makes $4M+ per hour, That is another dishonest distortion. Bezos does not make $4M+ per hour. He holds stock in Amazon that rises in value at that rate (Amazon's actual profit is on the order of 2% after close to two decades of 0 profit). The value of stocks stems from the fact that there are people who are willing to buy it at that price. This carries risk, because this willingness by others to buy the stock is subject to many factors, and it can go down to zero. Again, if you think it's easy, feel free to dump your savings into Amazon stock and see how easy it is for you to live of that or even make a good return - though I'm sure in your fictitious communist reality this would mean you would make millions without doing anything!