[Rob Instigator]

value is ephemeral.


I firmly believe that there is only so much "wealth" in any closed system. For someone to make a million, several hundred thousand people had to lose $10-$20 each. There is no "wealth creation." I hate that insidious lie.


for example, people nasume you create a new product and all the money you make is new wealth, but that is false. any money apple computers made, for example, was money that texas Instruments, Coleco, Tandy, etc. did NOT make. There is truly only so much to go around.




value is not solely determined by $$. I value you guys opinions and friendships but I would never place a price on it, and I would never expect to pay $$ for the value of your friendship.


It is extremely complex, and irreducible to simple statements of "truth"


(BTW, the Marxists were wrong about pretty much everything)


in American pyramid-scheme business, many corporations actively purchase products and businesses that have negative value. The tax breaks they get from losing money on one business offset the taxes they are supposed to pay from the profit of a different business. They get VALUE but no PROFIT.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

value is ephemeral.

im talking about practical stuff not metaphysics. life is ephemeral too. so is value. but in this life, value is value.

i want things

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

I firmly believe that there is only so much "wealth" in any closed system. For someone to make a million, several hundred thousand people had to lose $10-$20 each. There is no "wealth creation." I hate that insidious lie.

there is wealth creation!

i submit to you: crystal hot sauce combine aged chihuahua peppers, bottle with vinegar and salt in a hygienic fashion, bring it to a nearby store: I AM WEALTHY FOR I HAVE DELICIOUS AGED CHIHUAHUAN PEPPER ON MY TABLE

WEALTH!!!

you rich gringos don't appreciate wealth no more

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

for example, people nasume you create a new product and all the money you make is new wealth, but that is false. any money apple computers made, for example, was money that texas Instruments, Coleco, Tandy, etc. did NOT make. There is truly only so much to go around.

no entiendo

are you talking about schumpeter, creative destruction, etc?

too soon! too soon...

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

value is not solely determined by $$. I value you guys opinions and friendships but I would never place a price on it, and I would never expect to pay $$ for the value of your friendship.

correct. not all value involves money. but im not gonna fuck a stranger for their hot sauce! i prefer to give them money than love.

well, not fuck.. you get the idea. was just being extreme to clarify.

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

It is extremely complex, and irreducible to simple statements of "truth"

and yet, we must discuss positive factual statements

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

(BTW, the Marxists were wrong about pretty much everything)

yes but their theory of value is the source of their wrongness. i will follow with this in the next post.

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

in American pyramid-scheme business, many corporations actively purchase products and businesses that have negative value. The tax breaks they get from losing money on one business offset the taxes they are supposed to pay from the profit of a different business. They get VALUE but no PROFIT.

this is above my paygrade. wtf do i know of corporate tax offsets. not my sphere. accountants, lawyers, taxes... headaches.

[!@#$%!]

OKAY. SO.

to make things short.

VALUE is created by human desire. in the human mind.

that's it. it's that simple.

VALUE is... WHAT PEOPLE WANT.

VALUE is... CONSUMER DEMAND.

PRODUCTION has the purpose to MEET DEMAND.

otherwise, why work? of your needs are all met, you do nothing but sleep and fart.

if the consumer wants nothing, there is no value. you can work and work and work and make things and if the consumer does not want them... you're shit out of luck.

marxists had a LABOR THEORY OF VALUE.

even if marxism has fallen out of fashion, many of us still knowingly or unknowingly have a LABOR THEORY OF VALUE.

meaning: things are worth whatever work we put in it!

and this seems fair.

but what if i work 10,000 hours digging holes and then covering them up for no purpose?

that is a fuckton of labor with zero value.

this is what happens when someone makes a product nobody wants. you're shit out of luck but it has no value.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM THAT MOST PEOPLE HAVE UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT A "FAIR PRICE"

fair is what people will willingly pay for it. yes rarity and other shit will feature into it.

but something of value is basically something that has a demand for it.

(that includes friendships too. you want friendship, you value it.)

(but talking about economics here)

A BUSINESS CREATES VALUE WHEN IT MAKES SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE WANT. and with decent management it will profit and the business owners will be rewarded.

A BUSINESS DESTROYS VALUE WHEN IT THROWS RESOURCES INTO A FUCKED MONEY PIT OF USELESSNESS and the owners and investors will lose their shirts in the process lmao.

that's just what value is.

i want crystal hot sauce, i value it.

i want a 65" korean tv, i value it.

i personally don't give 2 shits about non-industrial diamonds (laughable) but enough people value them enough to make them expensive (fools, their problem)

i value water more in the desert than in my kitchen where it pours “free” from the tap ($10/mo or whatever)

unless ther is no water in my kitchen and i have to wash dishes. oh i have driven miles and miles to fill a tank of water. so i do value water in my kitchen always. but more when it’s scarce!.

see, this is why marxists think profit is theft: because, they say, the owner provided no labor! or the labor was negligible! or whatever other bullshit!

this is why they had a hard time satisfying consumer demand in their economy. they weren't "evil". they were just... wrong about reality.

wow i am tired from work today. i don't know if my exertions will amount to anything of value haaa haaaa haaaaaa. we'll see... one day...

[dirty bunny]

I'm just scanning this but symbols makes a lot of sense.

[Skuj]

But look at the last election.....what were the defining things that people were discussing? What details on policy did Trump put forth? Nobody gave a flying fuck about supply/demand/value/debt/foreign policy/pussy/fitness.

It all came down to emails.

[Skuj]

WTF is this "Socialism" that Trump keeps tagging the Dems with? The population doesn't fucking know, or care. It's just "bad". Like those emails. (Do you guys really think that Trump understands Socialism?)

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Skuj

WTF is this "Socialism" that Trump keeps tagging the Dems with? The population doesn't fucking know, or care. It's just "bad". Like those emails. (Do you guys really think that Trump understands Socialism?)

“the evil rich”

“redistribution of wealth”

government ownership of the means of production (healthcare is 20% of the economy roughly)

it doesnt matter if he knows or doesn’t. maybe kellyane is putting words in his moutn.

what matters is that this country has a strong tradition of individualism and free enterprise, and the takeover of the democratic party by the anticapitalist wing is gonna bite us in the ass HARD

there are reasonable ways to increase revenue from the wealthy (eg look at capital gains tax) without sounding like they’re a) an unlimited resource, b) evildoers

this is how the democratic party loses me for example

but hey if they wanna pander to the occupy kids, good luck with that...

quien con niños se acuesta amanece meado

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

"Nobody knows more about socialism than I do."

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

fair is what people will willingly pay for it

That makes sense within the context of a highly competitive market but what about the private rail company that has a monopoly on a certain route (arranged by agreement with other rail companies on other lines) that lets it cancel trains or hike fares as and when it wants to and still make huge profits because it has an effectively captive consumer base, made up largely of commuters, who aren't so much willing to pay for their service as forced to, because they effectively have no realistic alternative? This is the capitalism that I have a problem with, not the guy who sells hot sauce.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

That makes sense within the context of a highly competitive market but what about the private rail company that has a monopoly on a certain route (arranged by agreement with other rail companies on other lines) that lets it cancel trains or hike fares as and when it wants to and still make huge profits because it has an effectively captive consumer base, made up largely of commuters, who aren't so much willing to pay for their service as forced to, because they effectively have no realistic alternative? This is the capitalism that I have a problem with, not the guy who sells hot sauce.

ah, captive markets...

those usually don’t last without government support, do they?

i mean, i get that there’s a cartel in your example, and a rail line is (sort of) a natural monopoly, but what prevents an entrepreneur from launching a more convenient bus or van line that runs along the same lines as the train, and defeats them, or at least forces the train lines to lower prices?

the cartel formation is rent-seeking behavior that allows them to raise prices without added benefit to the public.

in a market economy we value public service through competition. this is why competition is sort of the supreme value. yes there are barriers to entry for the public transportation business, but if the government is promoting rent-seeking behavior that’s where the real problem comes with “the rich”, or with any group that seeks special treatment and protection from competition.

on the other hand, 20 years ago in the u.s. it took a family about 31 weeks of income to purchase a new vehicle. today the average is 21 weeks of income, i think i read. ("wage stagnation," whatever).

so through competition and innovation cars have become cheaper, safer, and more fuel-efficient. maybe at this price point it could beat the train? i don’t know your train prices or car prices or other options. vote with your pounds.

but anyway without the government propping up a cartel that does not benefit the customers, and limiting consumer options, it’s hard to see how this cartel would endure.

[!@#$%!]

eta: check this one demonyo

https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverw.../#7b0f5cd4a1aa

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

eta: check this one demonyo

https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverw.../#7b0f5cd4a1aa

That's incredibly flawed. Might be nice in Germany but here is a tad different. We have Megabus coaches too, however, we also have the traffic to contend with.
A coach journey for me from Preston to London is 6 hours, nearly 7. Worse if there's traffic. Train it's 2 1/2 hours. It would cost £30 for a return by the coach but y'know what? The idea of spending 7 hours on a very average coach is not one for me, Clive. If I book ahead enough I can get a return on the train for £60.

And also, that looks at long distant travel. On a personal level getting the bus from Preston to Manchester (45 minute train journey) is the only realistic way to there,bar driving. It's the same in London. People commute from the outskirts into London and the train is usually the best way. You seen London traffic, right? Which brings us back to his original point of people have no viable alternative.

Anyway, from all this I can't tell if your posts are incredibly anti-government and pro massive corporation. Ask me what a profit is one more damn time...

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

That's incredibly flawed. Might be nice in Germany but here is a tad different. We have Megabus coaches too, however, we also have the traffic to contend with.
A coach journey for me from Preston to London is 6 hours, nearly 7. Worse if there's traffic. Train it's 2 1/2 hours. It would cost £30 for a return by the coach but y'know what? The idea of spending 7 hours on a very average coach is not one for me, Clive. If I book ahead enough I can get a return on the train for £60.

Anyway, from all this I can't tell if your posts are incredibly anti-government and pro massive corporation. Ask me what a profit is one more damn time...

im pro-enterprise and against rent-seeking through government manipulation

so im for government when it ensures competition and free markets, against it when it establishes monopolies, cartels, special protections, etc

so you’re saying the train price is advantageous to you against alternative options? what’s the problem then?

-

i dont know about the new scenario you added and i cant comment

[!@#$%!]

so for example i have no problem with “corporations” in themselves.

there’s nothing wrong with corporations. they’re a way to pool resources for large enterprises where one individual lacks the capital. (e.g., a railway, insurance, mining, airlines, tech, etc)

but i do have a problem when a corporation lobbies the government asking for special favors, to leech from taxpayers to protect them from competitors, and guarantee privileges for themselves without adding any value to the economy.

that there is the problem we have today. “corporations are people” lmao. and “vote”. NO.

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

im pro-enterprise and against rent-seeking through government manipulation

so im for government when it ensures competition and free markets, against it when it establishes monopolies, cartels, special protections, etc

so you’re saying the train price is advantageous to you against alternative options? what’s the problem then?

-

i dont know about the new scenario you added and i cant comment

Key point-book ahead. My point being that the coach isn't a viable alternative in many situations. Long distance is ok if you're willing to put up with 7 hour coach journey.

I've actually forgotten what we were discussing. Something to do with the super rich need to pay their more than sizable share in taxes. 50% is NOT a high number. Things can't keep on as they are in that the gap gets bigger and bigger. This is why Bernie Sanders' stance has the potential to move a lot of people. However, he has got the whole media and Trump shouting "socialism" to fight against.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

Key point-book ahead. My point being that the coach isn't a viable alternative in many situations. Long distance is ok if you're willing to put up with 7 hour coach journey.

I've actually forgotten what we were discussing. Something to do with the super rich need to pay their more than sizable share in taxes. 50% is NOT a high number. Things can't keep on as they are in that the gap gets bigger and bigger. This is why Bernie Sanders' stance has the potential to move a lot of people. However, he has got the whole media and Trump shouting "socialism" to fight against.

the problem is that the rich are not rich because of “high wages”

the rich are rich because their ownership of business entrprises which create wealth in the market.

this wealth is shared by everyone though, not just in the marketplace with better/cheaper goods and services, but also in our collective ownership of these enterprises via saving and investing (if you have a retirement plan, you own the means of production).

wealth creation is not predatory. wealth creation benefits us all. i tried to explain/exemplify that.

on the other hand : rent seeking is predatory. it only benefits the rentier at the expense of everyone else. it creates market distortions, squelches innovation, prevents competition, etc..

the problem is the public does not distinguish between these behaviors.

if you can curb rent seeking while sparing wealth creation, im all the way with you taxing rents to a reasonable non-punitive level.

for example, the capital gains tax is capped at 20%. this is how the rich get the bulk of their income.

instead of trying to go 70% of “wages” like o’casio wants, just level up capital gains with the income tax!

and please dont waste that money offering free ponies to everyone and their mother. fix the fucking crumbling infrastructure instead.

as for healthcare, just finish fixing obamacare and preserve consumer choice. no need to conscript doctors into a national army. we’re closer to the swiss model.

[demonrail666]

Subsidies only stop the privatisation of the railways from being an even bigger disaster than it already is. They at least keep less profitable lines open - albeit it at a massively reduced service. But the point I'm making is these companies generate massive rewards with next to no risk for those rich enough to become shareholders.

[Rob Instigator]

no such thing as "wealth creation"


there is only a set amount of wealth, and rich people practice wealth ACCUMULATION, not CREATION.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Subsidies only stop the privatisation of the railways from being an even bigger disaster than it already is. They at least keep less profitable lines open - albeit it at a massively reduced service. But the point I'm making is these companies generate massive rewards with next to no risk for those rich enough to become shareholders.

shares are not expensive to buy actually. and you own shares of this and many other companies.

and maybe subsidies are the disaster itself, that keeps a dying enterprise in artificial life support?

i really don’t know a lot about rail service to be honest. much less in england. here in the u.s.a. the only profitable train route for passengers is the northeast corridor. otherwise it’s car country. you can buy a ford fiesta for as low as $12k!

and for long distance, airplanes are cheap and fast and fuel efficient. but i hate flying coach, lol.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

no such thing as "wealth creation"


there is only a set amount of wealth, and rich people practice wealth ACCUMULATION, not CREATION.

i dont know this theory

whose is it?

--

or what is it called so i can read about it