Labor is Prior to and Independent of Capital

[Liability]

Hard to say. A "Communist" country called China is kicking our asses right now.

I think it is extraordinarily funny to see libs clinging to the notion that Communist China is still actually communist.

Well,I think it has to do with the fact that the ruling party is called the "Communist" party and it calls itself the "People's Republic" and most of the industries are state owned, not privately owned.

What China has done is barter labor for capital... and it was the stupidest thing we've ever done...

If they called themselves Pure Democrats, would that make the people of China any less oppressed?

The label is not the determining factor.

And sure, state ownership of many of the factories is certainly ONE of the hallmarks of Marxian notions. But it does not suffice to make China actually "communist."

 

[Liability]

How does labor get hired if there's no capital?

Yeah. How is the labor of driving a truck prior to the existence of the truck?

How is the existence of the truck prior to the labor of MAKING the truck?

Capital is stored labor.

No. It isn't.

You misinterpret some of what Adam Smith said.

 

[Dragon]

There are hundreds of companies that do not fall into your obsolete understanding of the world. Transportation is one. Communication is another.

Both are a combination of manufacturing and services.

The something that you're missing is consumerism.

Not only am i not "missing" that, I actually understand it, which you do not. You cannot have consumerism without consumers, and no one is a consumer without income.

Incidentally, the People's Republic of China ceased being Communist shortly after the death of Mao Tze-Tung, except nominally. The proper answer to the capitalist-communist false duality is that it IS a false duality. This is not a black-and-white world, and there are more options than those two failed attempts at prosperity.

 

[bripat9643]

So honest Abe was a liberal after all?

Yes, he believed in an America for all Americans, regardless of station of life.

Meaningless leftwing psychobabble.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course people LABORED before capital existed.

All human wealth is created by some person's labor.

Even a lump of pure gold lying on the ground has NO WORTH until a human hand picks it up.

Yeah, before capital, people grubbed in the dirt with their bare hands. For every improvement in human existence, you can give credit to capital and the men who created it.

 

[bripat9643]

How does labor get hired if there's no capital?

Labor is what first produced the capital.

It was only the labor of first rate men who produced the capital we enjoy today. The kind of brutes who infest unions provide nothing put pure physical dumb labor.

You won't find men like thomas Edison working the controls of a backhoe.

 

[bripat9643]

How does labor get hired if there's no capital?

Yeah. How is the labor of driving a truck prior to the existence of the truck?

How is the existence of the truck prior to the labor of MAKING the truck?

Capital is stored labor.

The truck can't be built without billions of dollars worth of machinery and plant.

It's the old "chicken or the egg" conundrum.

However, if you trace the processs back to its origin, you'll find that a single man figured out that deliberately sowing seeds produced much greater abundance that simply gathering what nature provided. The rest of humanity simply immitated his example. That's the case with every advance in the human condition. A few innovators concieve of new methods to do things, the rest of the dumb brutes cash in on it. The idea that these dumb brutes deserve any credit for the massive amounts of wealth they produce due to technological improvements is simpy absurd.

 

[bripat9643]

I think it is extraordinarily funny to see libs clinging to the notion that Communist China is still actually communist.

Well,I think it has to do with the fact that the ruling party is called the "Communist" party and it calls itself the "People's Republic" and most of the industries are state owned, not privately owned.

What China has done is barter labor for capital... and it was the stupidest thing we've ever done...

If they called themselves Pure Democrats, would that make the people of China any less oppressed?

The label is not the determining factor.

And sure, state ownership of many of the factories is certainly ONE of the hallmarks of Marxian notions. But it does not suffice to make China actually "communist."

Actually, much of Chinese industry is privately owned. So that identifying characteristic makes them more capitalist than communist.

 

[code1211]

I think it is extraordinarily funny to see libs clinging to the notion that Communist China is still actually communist.

A label is a label.

I put a Rolls Royce "label" on a Yugo, the car is still a piece of shit.

That may be true, but a liberal would buy one and boast about it.

 

[Dragon]

The truck can't be built without billions of dollars worth of machinery and plant.

The machinery and plant can't exist without labor, either.

 

[Liability]

The truck can't be built without billions of dollars worth of machinery and plant.

The machinery and plant can't exist without labor, either.

True and true.

But neither assertion supports the claim that one came before the other or that it is necessary that one exist prior to the other.

 

[The T]

Well,I think it has to do with the fact that the ruling party is called the "Communist" party and it calls itself the "People's Republic" and most of the industries are state owned, not privately owned.

What China has done is barter labor for capital... and it was the stupidest thing we've ever done...

If they called themselves Pure Democrats, would that make the people of China any less oppressed?

The label is not the determining factor.

And sure, state ownership of many of the factories is certainly ONE of the hallmarks of Marxian notions. But it does not suffice to make China actually "communist."

Actually, much of Chinese industry is privately owned. So that identifying characteristic makes them more capitalist than communist.

And isn't it true that the Chinese need US more than we need them?

 

[code1211]

There are hundreds of companies that do not fall into your obsolete understanding of the world. Transportation is one. Communication is another.

Both are a combination of manufacturing and services.

The something that you're missing is consumerism.

Not only am i not "missing" that, I actually understand it, which you do not. You cannot have consumerism without consumers, and no one is a consumer without income.

Incidentally, the People's Republic of China ceased being Communist shortly after the death of Mao Tze-Tung, except nominally. The proper answer to the capitalist-communist false duality is that it IS a false duality. This is not a black-and-white world, and there are more options than those two failed attempts at prosperity.

Consumerism is actually a driving force behind design and manufacturing. Designing to the needs and wants of the consumer produced the Mustang and the Princess phone, the iPad and the Smart Phone.

Designing to the needs and the wants of the overarching controlling authority produced the Chevy Volt, the Yugo and the Muskvitch.

Consumerism is the basic design process of the free market and has created things which are useful and that address markets not know in many cases before they started their development. While it does address itself to consumers, it is an entire manufacturing process from idea to product to supply chain.

Consumerism encompasses the design, the pricing, the distribution and the advertising. Everything about it exists only to provide products at a profit to the consumer.

 

[Dragon]

Consumerism is actually a driving force behind design and manufacturing.

Yes, yes, but that doesn't change anything, and in fact reinforces what I'm saying about the problems faced by our economy today, with its massive and unsustainable maldistribution of income. It's still dependent on people having money in their pockets. Without that, no consumers, hence no consumerism, hence no "driving force," hence no design and manufacturing.

 

[The T]

How does labor get hired if there's no capital?

Labor is what first produced the capital.

It was only the labor of first rate men who produced the capital we enjoy today. The kind of brutes who infest unions provide nothing put pure physical dumb labor.

You won't find men like thomas Edison working the controls of a backhoe.

Freethinkers unabated by government intrusion have always been a driving force in real change and invention...this Government in it's present state? Not so much if at all.

 

[code1211]

Consumerism is actually a driving force behind design and manufacturing.

Yes, yes, but that doesn't change anything, and in fact reinforces what I'm saying about the problems faced by our economy today, with its massive and unsustainable maldistribution of income. It's still dependent on people having money in their pockets. Without that, no consumers, hence no consumerism, hence no "driving force," hence no design and manufacturing.

All of the hences do not eliminate the fact that ours is still the largest economy on the planet and could be larger if our government would remove its boot from the necks of the industry it is trying mightily to restrict.

 

[Dragon]

All of the hences do not eliminate the fact that ours is still the largest economy on the planet

Per capita (the only reasonable measure), no, it's not.

and could be larger if our government would remove its boot from the necks of the industry it is trying mightily to restrict.

That's not a fact. That's a faith-based statement of belief, grounded in no facts whatsoever.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course people LABORED before capital existed.

All human wealth is created by some person's labor.

Even a lump of pure gold lying on the ground has NO WORTH until a human hand picks it up.

Yeah, before capital, people grubbed in the dirt with their bare hands. For every improvement in human existence, you can give credit to capital and the men who created it.

Or that there was innovation. Yes, usually innovation is driven by greed or the desire to impress the oppossite sex....

But sometime human beings do things because they are the right thing to do. When Jonas Salk invented the Polio Vaccine, he could have patented it and made billions. He gave the information out to anyone who wanted it in order to get the vaccine out in a hurry.

Which is why no one gets Polio today. Not because of greed, but because of human innovation.

 

[bripat9643]

The truck can't be built without billions of dollars worth of machinery and plant.

The machinery and plant can't exist without labor, either.

The brute labor that runs the machinery is interchangable. The men who designed the machinery and had the courage and forsight to build the plant are not.

One man invented the wheel and understood its usefullness.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, before capital, people grubbed in the dirt with their bare hands. For every improvement in human existence, you can give credit to capital and the men who created it.

Or that there was innovation. Yes, usually innovation is driven by greed or the desire to impress the oppossite sex....

But sometime human beings do things because they are the right thing to do. When Jonas Salk invented the Polio Vaccine, he could have patented it and made billions. He gave the information out to anyone who wanted it in order to get the vaccine out in a hurry.

Which is why no one gets Polio today. Not because of greed, but because of human innovation.

It still wasn't because of union thuggery or government. "Labor" did not invent the polio vaccine. One genius did.