4 ms·

> 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

> 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
        I don’t understand what you mean. Did Aborigines own the land in what is now called “Australia” before the colonialists invaded and appropriated the territory? You understand that tools are capital, right?
        onethought 6y ago
        No. They didn’t own the land. They shared the land (it’s really interesting history). Ownership was a concept introduced in the 1700s. The Native title reference you made occurred in the 1980s as a defence not because they wanted ownership, but because they were being denied access to their spiritual home. Also capital has become important to survival now... which wasn’t the case prior. Like I said, your position ignores a lot of history. Tools are not capital, as they pre-existed the concept of capital/ownership. This isn’t like a scientific concept that was discovered. This is a human made dichotomy, there are a myriad of other ways to view the resources and how we consume/share/allocate things. Yes you can put everything in terms of capital (which is what you’re attempting) but there is nothing “more valid” about your concept than any other competing concept. These aren’t laws of physics.

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
        I don’t understand what you mean. Did Aborigines own the land in what is now called “Australia” before the colonialists invaded and appropriated the territory? You understand that tools are capital, right?
        onethought 6y ago
        No. They didn’t own the land. They shared the land (it’s really interesting history). Ownership was a concept introduced in the 1700s. The Native title reference you made occurred in the 1980s as a defence not because they wanted ownership, but because they were being denied access to their spiritual home. Also capital has become important to survival now... which wasn’t the case prior. Like I said, your position ignores a lot of history. Tools are not capital, as they pre-existed the concept of capital/ownership. This isn’t like a scientific concept that was discovered. This is a human made dichotomy, there are a myriad of other ways to view the resources and how we consume/share/allocate things. Yes you can put everything in terms of capital (which is what you’re attempting) but there is nothing “more valid” about your concept than any other competing concept. These aren’t laws of physics.