"Surplus Profits" theory non-valid ?

[Widdekind]

In the documentary The Corporation, activist Noam Chomsky seemingly espouses the Marxist doctrine, of "Surplus Profits", according to which all business profits are "owed" to the workers, in wages. Please ponder. A corporation, engaged in some business, "buys" the labor, of the worker, paying them their wages. And, that corporation also buys many other "inputs", e.g. electricity; water; coffee filters; styrofoam cups; chairs. Each of those "purchases" is an independent economic interaction; and each of the "products" purchased, by the corporation, are bought, at a "fair market price", determined by the supply versus demand, of that "product" (and no other factors, lest the market be un-fair).

Ergo, workers, who sell their "labor" to a corporation, are no more "owed" a cut, of that corporation's profits, than those other economic entities, who sell other "products" to that corporation. Logically, if you accept Marxist "Surplus Profits" doctrine; then you have declared "open season" on corporations, doling out all their profits, to all of their "up-stream suppliers", who sell them their production "inputs". I.e. you have de facto "opened up the corporation's wallet, and dumped all their money on the ground". I.e. you have "voted yourself the corporate private treasury".

 

[uscitizen]

They are not owed thoe profits, however if their wages are stagnant, their numbers drop or their wages decline this is not good for corporations profits in a consumer spending driven economy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The ceo should get the bulk of those profits

 

[uscitizen]

The ceo should get the bulk of those profits

Why? He is just another employee.

 

[Widdekind]

They are not owed thoe profits, however if their wages are stagnant, their numbers drop or their wages decline this is not good for corporations profits in a consumer spending driven economy.

According to that documentary (The Corporation), business that pay "10 cents an hour" can be perceived as "God-sends" that enable families to "buy the rice they need to feed their families". However, subsequently, the same documentary says that workers wind up starving, in a race-to-the-bottom, when many countries compete, for businesses, opening up free-trade-zones, and offering tax-breaks. Ergo, when supply of labor outstrips demand, labor must lower its "costs", both at the societal "public" scale, i.e. government taxes; and at the individual "private" scale, i.e. wages.

Uncritical acceptance, of "facts" as presented (stripped of "spin"), suggests that, world-wide, labor is "under-employed", i.e. incentivizing labor-intensive production strategies ("picks & shovels"). Perhaps public taxes could be reduced, in preference to private wages ?

 

[percysunshine]

Noam Chompsky?

That is, like, the weirdest name a set of cruel parents could ever give to a child.

Heck, Johny Cash was just joking when he wrote the song 'Sue'.

 

[Mr. H.]

That concept would fly if and only if workers also assumed a share of the corporation's debt and risk portfolio.

 

[DSGE]

Noam Chompsky?

That is, like, the weirdest name a set of cruel parents could ever give to a child.

Challenge accepted.

Pepsi Koch

Mork from Ork

Army Sergeant

Smark Grublins

Fanny Gobbler

Moon Unit

Dick Enthusiast

 

[percysunshine]

Noam Chompsky?

That is, like, the weirdest name a set of cruel parents could ever give to a child.

Challenge accepted.

Pepsi Koch

Mork from Ork

Army Sergeant

Smark Grublins

Fanny Gobbler

Moon Unit

Dick Enthusiast

'Mork From Ork' was a screen name imparted onto Robin Williams by a creative writers guild with Robins' full, and very successful, consent.

Fanny Gobbler?

Please tell us this is not a relative of yours...

 

[Mr. H.]

Naom Judd.

 

[DSGE]

Noam Chompsky?

That is, like, the weirdest name a set of cruel parents could ever give to a child.

Challenge accepted.

Pepsi Koch

Mork from Ork

Army Sergeant

Smark Grublins

Fanny Gobbler

Moon Unit

Dick Enthusiast

'Mork From Ork' was a screen name imparted onto Robin Williams by a creative writers guild with Robins' full, and very successful, consent.

Fanny Gobbler?

Please tell us this is not a relative of yours...

No. All but two are made up. I just thought it was a funny idea that there's somebody out there who likes Mork & Mindy so much that they'd name their child Mork from Ork. Kind of like how Nick Cage named his son Kal el.

 

[percysunshine]

Challenge accepted.

Pepsi Koch

Mork from Ork

Army Sergeant

Smark Grublins

Fanny Gobbler

Moon Unit

Dick Enthusiast

'Mork From Ork' was a screen name imparted onto Robin Williams by a creative writers guild with Robins' full, and very successful, consent.

Fanny Gobbler?

Please tell us this is not a relative of yours...

No. All but two are made up. I just thought it was a funny idea that there's somebody out there who likes Mork & Mindy so much that they'd name their child Mork from Ork. Kind of like how Nick Cage named his son Kal el.

Things get weird when women get pregnant. I woke up at 3am because of a noise, and found my pregnant wife eating an entire jar of peanut butter at the kitchen table with a giant spoon...

It was one of those 'what ever' moments....

 

[Mr. H.]

In the documentary The Corporation, activist Noam Chomsky seemingly espouses the Marxist doctrine, of "Surplus Profits", according to which all business profits are "owed" to the workers, in wages. Please ponder. A corporation, engaged in some business, "buys" the labor, of the worker, paying them their wages. And, that corporation also buys many other "inputs", e.g. electricity; water; coffee filters; styrofoam cups; chairs. Each of those "purchases" is an independent economic interaction; and each of the "products" purchased, by the corporation, are bought, at a "fair market price", determined by the supply versus demand, of that "product" (and no other factors, lest the market be un-fair).

Ergo, workers, who sell their "labor" to a corporation, are no more "owed" a cut, of that corporation's profits, than those other economic entities, who sell other "products" to that corporation. Logically, if you accept Marxist "Surplus Profits" doctrine; then you have declared "open season" on corporations, doling out all their profits, to all of their "up-stream suppliers", who sell them their production "inputs". I.e. you have de facto "opened up the corporation's wallet, and dumped all their money on the ground". I.e. you have "voted yourself the corporate private treasury".

I will reiterate... when workers assume a proportionate share of the risk and debt of their corporate employers- then and only then should they be afforded commensurate profits.

 

[itfitzme]

In the documentary The Corporation, activist Noam Chomsky seemingly espouses the Marxist doctrine, of "Surplus Profits", according to which all business profits are "owed" to the workers, in wages. Please ponder. A corporation, engaged in some business, "buys" the labor, of the worker, paying them their wages. And, that corporation also buys many other "inputs", e.g. electricity; water; coffee filters; styrofoam cups; chairs. Each of those "purchases" is an independent economic interaction; and each of the "products" purchased, by the corporation, are bought, at a "fair market price", determined by the supply versus demand, of that "product" (and no other factors, lest the market be un-fair).

Ergo, workers, who sell their "labor" to a corporation, are no more "owed" a cut, of that corporation's profits, than those other economic entities, who sell other "products" to that corporation. Logically, if you accept Marxist "Surplus Profits" doctrine; then you have declared "open season" on corporations, doling out all their profits, to all of their "up-stream suppliers", who sell them their production "inputs". I.e. you have de facto "opened up the corporation's wallet, and dumped all their money on the ground". I.e. you have "voted yourself the corporate private treasury".

Not for profit and non profit companies are a functional part of the US economy. It is hardly a concept unique to Marxism. CSAAA is a not-for-profit company where automobile insurance customers are shareholders. At the end of the year, excess earnings are returned to customers in a check. Along with the refund is a proxy signature card that can be signed and returned, giving proxy voting rights to the permanent board members.

The structure of "not for profit" and "non profit" companies is in no way, "opened up the corporation's wallet, and dumped all their money on the ground". CSAAA functions exceptionally well in the free market.

The whole concept of total quality management refers to employees, stockholders, suppliers and customers as stakeholders. Company success in the market is based on balancing the needs of all of the stakeholders, to ensure that the quality is maximized and the customer fully satisfied in delivery, quality and cost. It recognizes that suppliers have as much of a vested interest in the companies success as do the customers that depend on the product. Pissing of vendors and employees is as detrimental to success as is pissing of customers. Any one with half a brain gets this, and there is nothing "Marxist" about it.

There are many employee owned businesses in America.

Here is a list of 100 employee owned companies, List of employee-owned companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stock options are a form of employee ownership. Vested 401K plans are a form of employee ownership where the company contributes to the employees 401K plan of which years of employment earns them a greater percentage of that contribution. As the company grows, employees reap the benefits of sticking it out.

Unions are a form of employee interest in the companies that compete in the market. Where ever a market enjoys considerable market leverage and high profit margins, unions form. They form as part of the market and ensure that employees, as stakeholders, are represented in the quality management of the company.

Sony, Mitsubishi, Ford, GM, Tyson's Chicken, and every manner of successful companies in the free market consider vendors and employees as part of their quality management team.

There is nothing "Marxist" about these.

 

[Widdekind]

when workers assume a proportionate share of the risk and debt of their corporate employers- then and only then should they be afforded commensurate profits.

Workers can purchase "stock", and so receive "dividends", presumably proportional to corporate "profits". Workers supplying "labor" to a corporation; and buying "stock" from a corporation; are separate & distinct economic "transactions", requiring no additional "legal overhead".

 

[Widdekind]

Not for profit and non profit companies are a functional part of the US economy. It is hardly a concept unique to Marxism.

yes -- however, I only referred to Karl Marx's theory of Surplus Value. Please ponder. A corporation makes a "profit", by manufacturing "widgets", when the prices of "inputs" (e.g. raw materials, labor) are "low"; and the prices of "outputs" (i.e. "widgets") are "high". I.e. some thing, which is "cheap & easy to build", is in "high demand". That "profit potential" powers production; and is the "Surplus Value" that Marx targeted.

Now, there is seemingly no direct economic connection, between the demand for "labor"; and the demand for "widgets". One could have "low" market value, e.g. "water"; the other could have "high" market value, e.g. "diamonds". Marx' advice for workers, is to "strike", en masse, i.e. "hold the economy hostage", until businesses "beg for them back", increasing "wages", thereby "eating into" corporate profits, i.e. Surplus Value, until businesses "barely break even". The result is a "stifled economy", with zero "profit potential", powering zero production, c.p. common Communist expression, "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us".

In analogy, "profit potential" is like the electric voltage difference, between two terminals, of a battery; and workers' demands, for inflated wages, by reducing that "profit potential", is like discharging the battery, until it is "dead". Then, the economic "lights go out"; and (ultimately) workers pretend to work, and pretend to be paid.

Meanwhile, actual economic activity, will predictably shift, into remaining profitable production, i.e. "Black market" (cp. "Gold, Oil, Drugs"), presumably the province, of other producers. E.g. drug cartels employ "labor" that is "cheap", to manufacture "drugs" that are "expensive". If "Colombian peasants" became Marxists; then they would Unionize, demand 'their' Surplus Value, and earn thousands of dollars per hour, until the costs, to produce drugs, equaled the revenues, of street sales. Ultimately, the peasants would pretend to work; and pretend to be paid; as no-longer-profitable drug sales dwindled away. Drugs, manufactured per free-market principles, i.e. "no Unions", are profitable; and, Hollywood makes movies, catering to public interest, in those profits. Likewise, Oil is profitable, and Muslim Oil-producing nations have the highest per-capita incomes on this world. Conversely, no movies are made, about, e.g. profit-stifled American car manufacturers.