4 ms·

> No, it is not ever created with capital. But of course it is. If I spend a year writing a book, ownership of the book is now capital. I may sell copies of th

> No, it is not ever created with capital. But of course it is. If I spend a year writing a book, ownership of the book is now capital. I may sell copies of the book (in digital form to keep things clear) for decades to come. The capital resource in this case generates income without additional labor on my part after its construction, and no labor on anyone else's part, ever. > I do not believe you understood. I do understand. Your perspective stems from a measure of free agency. Mine stems from a measure of relative value. Your perspective is useful when reasoning about moral issues related to overwork. For example, we should provide for those who cannot provide for themselves - so they do not cease to exist as you put it. It is not so useful when reasoning about how to value the actual work output.

ddingus 5y ago
Ok, let's break it down: You spend a year writing a book. Labor rendered ideas into a form others can use. It is capital. It is also a means. And it is a book. Now you sell copies, right? Capital did not sell copies. You did, and you had to labor to do that. In the digital case, literally thousands of people and their labor copy, distribute and take payment for your book. It takes a lot of people to maintain that network your book is on. Capital can amplify labor. That is a tool, device, mechanism. Capital can compensate others for labor too. What it does not do is create. That is what people do. That is what labor is.
- throwaway09223 5y ago
  This is reductio ad absurdum. According to you, all things are labor because they somehow intersect with a world in which labor is performed, no matter how slight the effect. In reality, I do not labor when someone orders something from my online store. The process is automated. The income is passive. In fact, according to your line of argument, capital investments are labor too. Even if we accept the argument (which I don't) it utterly counters your position. Just nonsense.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    The reason the labor on your book sale is small is because the labor of many others was amplified and aggregated. It is passive to you, but the margin taken from your sale is paying other people. Technology is an amazing thing, isn't it? Your hard year of labor to make your book will see more readers, at a lower cost per acquiring readers than was possible before! I do not follow your capital investment argument. Go ahead, put it out there. What are you thinking? Let's talk it through. This is a fairly high value conversation. It always is every time I have it. Ideally, we build to a point where very little labor is required. We will have created great wealth! Which brings me back to how we value people, labor, etc... Some of us will still be doing the basics. Should those people not see some greater measure of that in their lives? Clearly, we will be able afford it. In any case, using some Latin does not change the hard facts though. I am stating a fact to you. It is not opinion.

ddingus 5y ago

Ok, let's break it down: You spend a year writing a book. Labor rendered ideas into a form others can use. It is capital. It is also a means. And it is a book. Now you sell copies, right? Capital did not sell copies. You did, and you had to labor to do that. In the digital case, literally thousands of people and their labor copy, distribute and take payment for your book. It takes a lot of people to maintain that network your book is on. Capital can amplify labor. That is a tool, device, mechanism. Capital can compensate others for labor too. What it does not do is create. That is what people do. That is what labor is.

throwaway09223 5y ago
This is reductio ad absurdum. According to you, all things are labor because they somehow intersect with a world in which labor is performed, no matter how slight the effect. In reality, I do not labor when someone orders something from my online store. The process is automated. The income is passive. In fact, according to your line of argument, capital investments are labor too. Even if we accept the argument (which I don't) it utterly counters your position. Just nonsense.
- ddingus 5y ago
  The reason the labor on your book sale is small is because the labor of many others was amplified and aggregated. It is passive to you, but the margin taken from your sale is paying other people. Technology is an amazing thing, isn't it? Your hard year of labor to make your book will see more readers, at a lower cost per acquiring readers than was possible before! I do not follow your capital investment argument. Go ahead, put it out there. What are you thinking? Let's talk it through. This is a fairly high value conversation. It always is every time I have it. Ideally, we build to a point where very little labor is required. We will have created great wealth! Which brings me back to how we value people, labor, etc... Some of us will still be doing the basics. Should those people not see some greater measure of that in their lives? Clearly, we will be able afford it. In any case, using some Latin does not change the hard facts though. I am stating a fact to you. It is not opinion.