3 ms·

> I’m talking about workers. Machines even if they were used are also managed by workers. There are workers who operate the machines and there are workers who

> I’m talking about workers. Machines even if they were used are also managed by workers. There are workers who operate the machines and there are workers who makes sure the factory exists for other people to work at. > The actual value generation occurred there. Not at the capital allocation point. Value is generated when a capitalist arranges capital so that he can hire people. > But if I pay you to carry 10kgs up a mountain I can’t then say: “I carried 10kg up a mountain” ... If you pay me and my worker’s comp insurance then you can say “we carried 10kg up the mountain” because I wouldn’t have done it for free or without insurance.

onethought 6y ago
At the fundamental level I don’t agree with this position. A simple measure: if you remove all the capital value CAN still be generated. If you remove all the workers value CANNOT be generated any longer. (Regardless of incentive schemes)
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > A simple measure: if you remove all the capital value CAN still be generated. If you remove all the workers value CANNOT be generated any longer. (Regardless of incentive schemes) I’m aware that if you remove all the workers, value cannot be generated anymore. This includes the worker whose work is allocating capital. Hence all workers are entitled to the pay that they can negotiate with other market participants, including the capitalist who negotiates a rent (or other arrangement) for his capital. However the level of productivity of workers without any sort of tools is very likely to be below survival.
  - onethought 6y ago
    Straw man, and misapplication of my point. Are you holding the view that productive society can’t exist without allocation of capital? Cause the 1000s of years of evidence to the contrary disagrees with you. Value generation doesn’t require capital, or capitalist. Someone doesn’t need to OWN the results of other people’s work. Crazy I know.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > Are you holding the view that productive society can’t exist without allocation of capital? Cause the 1000s of years of evidence to the contrary disagrees with you. Why do you believe that capital was not allocated for 1000s of years? This seems absurd, and I’m not sure how to charitably interpret this. Do you think that humans were unthinking automatons until recently? When the Egyptians built the pyramids, that was capital allocation. > Value generation doesn’t require capital, or capitalist. This is generally speaking, false. Value generation does indeed require capital allocation. Otherwise there would be no tools or raw materials with which to generate value. > Someone doesn’t need to OWN the results of other people’s work. Ownership is a social construct that determines who is entitled to use of a thing. Without that social arrangement, then people will just fight over stuff. This is why animals evolved territoriality. > Crazy I know. Then join us over here on the side of sanity where we do understand how ownership works.
      - onethought 6y ago
        Australian aboriginals. 60000 years. No capital, no ownership (no words to even express the concept). Plenty of tools and productive work.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        Tools are capital. Land is capital. > No capital, no ownership (no words to even express the concept). My understanding is that the Australian government is continuing to expropriate their land (capital). So it seems to be a basic fact that they did own it before, and that is no longer the case.
        onethought 6y ago
        You are applying future concepts on the past. This is nonsense.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago

onethought 6y ago

At the fundamental level I don’t agree with this position. A simple measure: if you remove all the capital value CAN still be generated. If you remove all the workers value CANNOT be generated any longer. (Regardless of incentive schemes)

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> A simple measure: if you remove all the capital value CAN still be generated. If you remove all the workers value CANNOT be generated any longer. (Regardless of incentive schemes) I’m aware that if you remove all the workers, value cannot be generated anymore. This includes the worker whose work is allocating capital. Hence all workers are entitled to the pay that they can negotiate with other market participants, including the capitalist who negotiates a rent (or other arrangement) for his capital. However the level of productivity of workers without any sort of tools is very likely to be below survival.
- onethought 6y ago
  Straw man, and misapplication of my point. Are you holding the view that productive society can’t exist without allocation of capital? Cause the 1000s of years of evidence to the contrary disagrees with you. Value generation doesn’t require capital, or capitalist. Someone doesn’t need to OWN the results of other people’s work. Crazy I know.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > Are you holding the view that productive society can’t exist without allocation of capital? Cause the 1000s of years of evidence to the contrary disagrees with you. Why do you believe that capital was not allocated for 1000s of years? This seems absurd, and I’m not sure how to charitably interpret this. Do you think that humans were unthinking automatons until recently? When the Egyptians built the pyramids, that was capital allocation. > Value generation doesn’t require capital, or capitalist. This is generally speaking, false. Value generation does indeed require capital allocation. Otherwise there would be no tools or raw materials with which to generate value. > Someone doesn’t need to OWN the results of other people’s work. Ownership is a social construct that determines who is entitled to use of a thing. Without that social arrangement, then people will just fight over stuff. This is why animals evolved territoriality. > Crazy I know. Then join us over here on the side of sanity where we do understand how ownership works.
    - onethought 6y ago
      Australian aboriginals. 60000 years. No capital, no ownership (no words to even express the concept). Plenty of tools and productive work.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        Tools are capital. Land is capital. > No capital, no ownership (no words to even express the concept). My understanding is that the Australian government is continuing to expropriate their land (capital). So it seems to be a basic fact that they did own it before, and that is no longer the case.
        onethought 6y ago
        You are applying future concepts on the past. This is nonsense.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago