5 ms·

> because another competing doctors guild would do the surgery because they value saving lives over driving luxury cars No, because they can undercut they othe

by qwytw 3y ago

> because another competing doctors guild would do the surgery because they value saving lives over driving luxury cars No, because they can undercut they other doctors and get all their customers while still making a lot of money. That's literally how all business work in competitive markets and most of them have nothing to do with 'saving lives', yet they behave in the same way. And free market competition is something generally associated with capitalism because it's hardly possible without private ownership of businesses. > performed over a specific time, is objective. Because it's determined by the market (more or less the same like the price for all other goods). It's objective as much as the price of any good and service in a capitalist system is.

orthecreedence 3y ago
> Because it's determined by the market Sure, a labor market, like I've been saying. And my argument is that this raw information has usefulness to making economic decisions, and prices erase that information. A labor market determining the value of labor, and that labor being performed and imbued into some product, is a much more objective measure than that product costing some arbitrary amount set by some analyst trying to maximize margins. You aren't refuting the fact that prices erase information, you're just explaining how markets work.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > imbued into some product Labor can be worthless if it's 'imbued' into a worthless product. I'm not sure what you're suggesting, supply and demand determines the price, if your good cost more in labor and material to produce than anyone is willing to pay for it nobody will buy it. > much more objective measure So the market will set prices for labor but not for goods and services? What? > You aren't refuting the fact that prices erase information What does that even mean? Are you implying that workers should only be paid as much as they need to fulfill some set of needs and no more?
  - orthecreedence 3y ago
    > I'm not sure what you're suggesting Really? That it costs labor and resources to make things? Is that really hard to understand? > if your good cost more in labor and material to produce than anyone is willing to pay for it nobody will buy it. Thanks for explaining markets again. This is tangential to my point. > So the market will set prices for labor but not for goods and services? What? You're getting close. Cost and price are separate entities. Price is "what I think someone should pay" cost is a set of labor and resources it took to make something. > Are you implying that workers should only be paid as much as they need to fulfill some set of needs and no more? No? I'm not saying anything about paying people or even the organization of production. I'm saying that prices are a form of lossy compression. 5 + 7 + 6 + 2 = 20, but given 20, we have no idea that 5, 7, 6, or 2 were part of the equation or that there were four numbers to begin with. If it takes an hour of labor and a kilogram of wood to build something (something that, yes, someone wants because we're not talking about mudpies obviously), the cost to build that thing is an hour of labor and a kilogram of wood, not $20. $20 is arbitrary and effectively useless measurement. The number $20 contains information and you might be able to infer some of the information contained in it, but you can never actually be sure what the information is or the other pieces of information that make it up. Prices erase information. As a system of measuring cost, they are pathetically limited. Yeah, ok I get it, people exchange things in markets and blah blah, but if a chair has 3kg of wood in it, then we know that it cost at least 3kg of wood (a resource) to produce. There is nothing subjective about this.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      > That it costs labor and resources to make things? Is that really hard to understand? Yeah, but that's a pretty obvious thing? If that was the entire point then I'm sorry I misunderstood you. > Prices erase information. As a system of measuring cost, they are pathetically limited Yes. But I don't see a problem with that (I mean you can still estimate costs and offer a price based on that). > but if a chair has 3kg of wood in it, then we know that it cost at least 3kg of wood (a resource) to produce Same applies to labor though. e.g. it took the worker N hours to make it, he used up X amounts of calories to do that, his dormitory bunk costs Y etc. So X+Y+... is the "real" cost. That'd be absurd, the worker can/should charge as much for his work as the market will bare. > There is nothing subjective about this. No, the way you put it of course not. So what, though?

by qwytw 3y ago

orthecreedence 3y ago

> Because it's determined by the market Sure, a labor market, like I've been saying. And my argument is that this raw information has usefulness to making economic decisions, and prices erase that information. A labor market determining the value of labor, and that labor being performed and imbued into some product, is a much more objective measure than that product costing some arbitrary amount set by some analyst trying to maximize margins. You aren't refuting the fact that prices erase information, you're just explaining how markets work.

qwytw 3y ago
> imbued into some product Labor can be worthless if it's 'imbued' into a worthless product. I'm not sure what you're suggesting, supply and demand determines the price, if your good cost more in labor and material to produce than anyone is willing to pay for it nobody will buy it. > much more objective measure So the market will set prices for labor but not for goods and services? What? > You aren't refuting the fact that prices erase information What does that even mean? Are you implying that workers should only be paid as much as they need to fulfill some set of needs and no more?
- orthecreedence 3y ago
  > I'm not sure what you're suggesting Really? That it costs labor and resources to make things? Is that really hard to understand? > if your good cost more in labor and material to produce than anyone is willing to pay for it nobody will buy it. Thanks for explaining markets again. This is tangential to my point. > So the market will set prices for labor but not for goods and services? What? You're getting close. Cost and price are separate entities. Price is "what I think someone should pay" cost is a set of labor and resources it took to make something. > Are you implying that workers should only be paid as much as they need to fulfill some set of needs and no more? No? I'm not saying anything about paying people or even the organization of production. I'm saying that prices are a form of lossy compression. 5 + 7 + 6 + 2 = 20, but given 20, we have no idea that 5, 7, 6, or 2 were part of the equation or that there were four numbers to begin with. If it takes an hour of labor and a kilogram of wood to build something (something that, yes, someone wants because we're not talking about mudpies obviously), the cost to build that thing is an hour of labor and a kilogram of wood, not $20. $20 is arbitrary and effectively useless measurement. The number $20 contains information and you might be able to infer some of the information contained in it, but you can never actually be sure what the information is or the other pieces of information that make it up. Prices erase information. As a system of measuring cost, they are pathetically limited. Yeah, ok I get it, people exchange things in markets and blah blah, but if a chair has 3kg of wood in it, then we know that it cost at least 3kg of wood (a resource) to produce. There is nothing subjective about this.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > That it costs labor and resources to make things? Is that really hard to understand? Yeah, but that's a pretty obvious thing? If that was the entire point then I'm sorry I misunderstood you. > Prices erase information. As a system of measuring cost, they are pathetically limited Yes. But I don't see a problem with that (I mean you can still estimate costs and offer a price based on that). > but if a chair has 3kg of wood in it, then we know that it cost at least 3kg of wood (a resource) to produce Same applies to labor though. e.g. it took the worker N hours to make it, he used up X amounts of calories to do that, his dormitory bunk costs Y etc. So X+Y+... is the "real" cost. That'd be absurd, the worker can/should charge as much for his work as the market will bare. > There is nothing subjective about this. No, the way you put it of course not. So what, though?