Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[bripat9643]

Not necessarily. If one was made by an inefficient manufacturer, it may have required twice the labor to create. According to Tehon, one has twice the intrinsic value of the other. However, the consumers will pay the same price for each. They don't give a damn about how much labor they each took when they make a purchasing decision.

I think it's just a round about way of justifying their view that capitalists don't add "value". It makes it sound less silly if they dink around with obscure theories hinging on questionable premises.

It's the ultimate justification for confiscating the capitalists. That's all it ever has been.

 

[bripat9643]

I Grew Up in a Communist System. Here’s What Americans Don’t Understand About Freedom | Carmen Alexe

Do you notice how liberals never talk about communism? Communism has nothing to do with the American left wing ideology.

Of course they never use the word "communism," but they spew Marxist ideology all day long. What do you think the whole "pay their fair share" crap is about?

 

[Billy000]

I Grew Up in a Communist System. Here’s What Americans Don’t Understand About Freedom | Carmen Alexe

Do you notice how liberals never talk about communism? Communism has nothing to do with the American left wing ideology.

Of course they never use the word "communism," but they spew Marxist ideology all day long. What do you think the whole "pay their fair share" crap is about?

No prominent liberal has ever suggested eliminating the private market or paying everyone equally. Democrats in office sure as hell don’t say stuff like this.

 

[dblack]

Not necessarily. If one was made by an inefficient manufacturer, it may have required twice the labor to create. According to Tehon, one has twice the intrinsic value of the other. However, the consumers will pay the same price for each. They don't give a damn about how much labor they each took when they make a purchasing decision.

I think it's just a round about way of justifying their view that capitalists don't add "value". It makes it sound less silly if they dink around with obscure theories hinging on questionable premises.

It's the ultimate justification for confiscating the capitalists. That's all it ever has been.

Right, but the intrinsic value thing, in particular, is important to their argument because it's used to construct a pseudo-equation. Which is just a tortured way of showing the obvious - that capitalists make money "by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor." That statement makes no sense if value is recognized (accurately) as a subjective measure. That's why they're so hard-pressed to let go of such an obviously false claim.

 

[Tehon]

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

Except you never explain how the "definite value" can be measured. You simply insist that it exists and that it's different from the market price.

Accumulated labor hours.

Prove it. You have already admitted the price is not the same as the value, so what is the value of an orange? How do you know the labor used to create it is the value? Marxists insist that labor is being ripped off by capitalists, so they claim labor isn't being paid what it's worth. How do you know what its worth?

Admit it? I explained it to you.

The value of the orange exchanged as a commodity is equal to the value of the labor involved in producing it. Where else would you derive value?

So, it sounds like this intrinsic value of a product is independent of the perceived utility of the labor, is that correct? So two products that took the same amount of labor to produce would have the same intrinsic value?

Labor is itself a commodity.

It takes labor time to develop a skill so the intrinsic value of skilled labor is more than that of unskilled labor.

 

[dblack]

Except you never explain how the "definite value" can be measured. You simply insist that it exists and that it's different from the market price.

Accumulated labor hours.

Prove it. You have already admitted the price is not the same as the value, so what is the value of an orange? How do you know the labor used to create it is the value? Marxists insist that labor is being ripped off by capitalists, so they claim labor isn't being paid what it's worth. How do you know what its worth?

Admit it? I explained it to you.

The value of the orange exchanged as a commodity is equal to the value of the labor involved in producing it. Where else would you derive value?

So, it sounds like this intrinsic value of a product is independent of the perceived utility of the labor, is that correct? So two products that took the same amount of labor to produce would have the same intrinsic value?

Labor is itself a commodity.

It takes labor time to develop a skill so the intrinsic value of skilled labor is more than that of unskilled labor.

Oh... well you said earlier "intrinsic value" was measured by 'accumulated labor hours'. But clearly, some labor hours are more equal than others. How do we measure that?

 

[theHawk]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

The more correct term is statism. Socialists, Marxists, fascists, communists, all leftists really believe in the state above all else. There is no belief in individuals or God. There is only the state.

 

[francoHFW]

I Grew Up in a Communist System. Here’s What Americans Don’t Understand About Freedom | Carmen Alexe

Do you notice how liberals never talk about communism? Communism has nothing to do with the American left wing ideology.

Of course they never use the word "communism," but they spew Marxist ideology all day long. What do you think the whole "pay their fair share" crap is about?

quite an imagination you have super dupe. The top fifth of Americans pay less percentage-wise than many in the middle class and the second V th in general, so they get basically all the new wealth and the middle class and the country go to hell. Read something for crying out loud. Communism is a dictatorship that owns everything. Nobody believes in that stupid. Socialism is just fair always democratic capitalism everywhere in the world but your stupid brainwashed GOP bubble.

 

[Tehon]

I have no "angle". I am trying to explain that there is a definite value associated with a commodity that can be quantitatively measured.

Except you never explain how the "definite value" can be measured. You simply insist that it exists and that it's different from the market price.

Accumulated labor hours.

Prove it. You have already admitted the price is not the same as the value, so what is the value of an orange? How do you know the labor used to create it is the value? Marxists insist that labor is being ripped off by capitalists, so they claim labor isn't being paid what it's worth. How do you know what its worth?

Admit it? I explained it to you.

The value of the orange exchanged as a commodity is equal to the value of the labor involved in producing it. Where else would you derive value?

If I hired someone to chop down a tree in my yard, mill the wood and create a piece of furniture that I intended to exchange for something of equal value with the intent of building capital, how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?

He also has talent, tools and expenses

By he, do you mean me?

 

[francoHFW]

I Grew Up in a Communist System. Here’s What Americans Don’t Understand About Freedom | Carmen Alexe

Do you notice how liberals never talk about communism? Communism has nothing to do with the American left wing ideology.

Of course they never use the word "communism," but they spew Marxist ideology all day long. What do you think the whole "pay their fair share" crap is about?

quite an imagination you have super dupe. The top fifth of Americans pay less percentage-wise than many in the middle class and the second V th in general, so they get basically all the new wealth and the middle class and the country go to hell. Read something for crying out loud. Communism is a dictatorship that owns everything. Nobody believes in that stupid. Socialism is just fair always democratic capitalism everywhere in the world but your stupid brainwashed GOP bubble.

while you're babbling that total b*******, the middle class and the country are going to hell, super dupe.


Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-c...lity-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/bl

 

[Tehon]

Accumulated labor hours.

Prove it. You have already admitted the price is not the same as the value, so what is the value of an orange? How do you know the labor used to create it is the value? Marxists insist that labor is being ripped off by capitalists, so they claim labor isn't being paid what it's worth. How do you know what its worth?

Admit it? I explained it to you.

The value of the orange exchanged as a commodity is equal to the value of the labor involved in producing it. Where else would you derive value?

So, it sounds like this intrinsic value of a product is independent of the perceived utility of the labor, is that correct? So two products that took the same amount of labor to produce would have the same intrinsic value?

Labor is itself a commodity.

It takes labor time to develop a skill so the intrinsic value of skilled labor is more than that of unskilled labor.

Oh... well you said earlier "intrinsic value" was measured by 'accumulated labor hours'. But clearly, some labor hours are more equal than others. How do we measure that?

Did you not understand what I just said? It doesn't seem like it.

The value of a particular type of labor is equal to the time developing it.

 

[Tehon]

Accumulated labor hours.

Prove it. You have already admitted the price is not the same as the value, so what is the value of an orange? How do you know the labor used to create it is the value? Marxists insist that labor is being ripped off by capitalists, so they claim labor isn't being paid what it's worth. How do you know what its worth?

Admit it? I explained it to you.

The value of the orange exchanged as a commodity is equal to the value of the labor involved in producing it. Where else would you derive value?

So, it sounds like this intrinsic value of a product is independent of the perceived utility of the labor, is that correct? So two products that took the same amount of labor to produce would have the same intrinsic value?

Labor is itself a commodity.

It takes labor time to develop a skill so the intrinsic value of skilled labor is more than that of unskilled labor.

Oh... well you said earlier "intrinsic value" was measured by 'accumulated labor hours'. But clearly, some labor hours are more equal than others. How do we measure that?

You mean that people are not equal and some are more skilled than others when undertaking the same task?

The value averages out. The value is equal to the socially necessary labor time for completing a task given the technology available at a given time in history.

 

[dblack]

Prove it. You have already admitted the price is not the same as the value, so what is the value of an orange? How do you know the labor used to create it is the value? Marxists insist that labor is being ripped off by capitalists, so they claim labor isn't being paid what it's worth. How do you know what its worth?

Admit it? I explained it to you.

The value of the orange exchanged as a commodity is equal to the value of the labor involved in producing it. Where else would you derive value?

So, it sounds like this intrinsic value of a product is independent of the perceived utility of the labor, is that correct? So two products that took the same amount of labor to produce would have the same intrinsic value?

Labor is itself a commodity.

It takes labor time to develop a skill so the intrinsic value of skilled labor is more than that of unskilled labor.

Oh... well you said earlier "intrinsic value" was measured by 'accumulated labor hours'. But clearly, some labor hours are more equal than others. How do we measure that?

You mean that people are not equal and some are more skilled than others when undertaking the same task?

The value averages out. The value is equal to the socially necessary labor time for completing a task given the technology available at a given time in history.

Uh... ok. So, if it takes the same "socially necessary labor time" to polish a turd (and get it really, really shiny) as it does to produce a vial of life-saving medicine - are you contending that the turd and the medicine have the same intrinsic value?

 

[bripat9643]

I Grew Up in a Communist System. Here’s What Americans Don’t Understand About Freedom | Carmen Alexe

Do you notice how liberals never talk about communism? Communism has nothing to do with the American left wing ideology.

Of course they never use the word "communism," but they spew Marxist ideology all day long. What do you think the whole "pay their fair share" crap is about?

No prominent liberal has ever suggested eliminating the private market or paying everyone equally. Democrats in office sure as hell don’t say stuff like this.

 

[Tehon]

Admit it? I explained it to you.

The value of the orange exchanged as a commodity is equal to the value of the labor involved in producing it. Where else would you derive value?

So, it sounds like this intrinsic value of a product is independent of the perceived utility of the labor, is that correct? So two products that took the same amount of labor to produce would have the same intrinsic value?

Labor is itself a commodity.

It takes labor time to develop a skill so the intrinsic value of skilled labor is more than that of unskilled labor.

Oh... well you said earlier "intrinsic value" was measured by 'accumulated labor hours'. But clearly, some labor hours are more equal than others. How do we measure that?

You mean that people are not equal and some are more skilled than others when undertaking the same task?

The value averages out. The value is equal to the socially necessary labor time for completing a task given the technology available at a given time in history.

Uh... ok. So, if it takes the same "socially necessary labor time" to polish a turd (and get it really, really shiny) as it does to produce a vial of life-saving medicine - are you contending that the turd and the medicine have the same intrinsic value?

Assuming that it took more time to develop the skills necessary to produce a vial of life saving medicine. The value contained in the life saving medicine would be greater.

 

[dblack]

Uh... ok. So, if it takes the same "socially necessary labor time" to polish a turd (and get it really, really shiny) as it does to produce a vial of life-saving medicine - are you contending that the turd and the medicine have the same intrinsic value?

Assuming that it took more time to develop the skills necessary to produce a vial of life saving medicine. The value contained in the life saving medicine would be greater.

Assume it didn't. Maybe the people working on the medicine just got lucky. If the labor invested on the turd and the medicine were the same, would they have the same intrinsic value in your view?

 

[Tehon]

Labor is itself a commodity.

It takes labor time to develop a skill so the intrinsic value of skilled labor is more than that of unskilled labor.

Oh... well you said earlier "intrinsic value" was measured by 'accumulated labor hours'. But clearly, some labor hours are more equal than others. How do we measure that?

You mean that people are not equal and some are more skilled than others when undertaking the same task?

The value averages out. The value is equal to the socially necessary labor time for completing a task given the technology available at a given time in history.

Uh... ok. So, if it takes the same "socially necessary labor time" to polish a turd (and get it really, really shiny) as it does to produce a vial of life-saving medicine - are you contending that the turd and the medicine have the same intrinsic value?

Assuming that it took more time to develop the skills necessary to produce a vial of life saving medicine. The value contained in the life saving medicine would be greater.

Assume it didn't. Maybe the people working on the medicine just got lucky. If the labor invested on the turd and the medicine were the same, would they have the same intrinsic value in your view?

I know better.

You're fishing.

 

[dblack]

It

Oh... well you said earlier "intrinsic value" was measured by 'accumulated labor hours'. But clearly, some labor hours are more equal than others. How do we measure that?

You mean that people are not equal and some are more skilled than others when undertaking the same task?

The value averages out. The value is equal to the socially necessary labor time for completing a task given the technology available at a given time in history.

Uh... ok. So, if it takes the same "socially necessary labor time" to polish a turd (and get it really, really shiny) as it does to produce a vial of life-saving medicine - are you contending that the turd and the medicine have the same intrinsic value?

Assuming that it took more time to develop the skills necessary to produce a vial of life saving medicine. The value contained in the life saving medicine would be greater.

Assume it didn't. Maybe the people working on the medicine just got lucky. If the labor invested on the turd and the medicine were the same, would they have the same intrinsic value in your view?

I know better.

It's a hypothetical, dork. Are you not good with those?

The point you're running away from here, is that the utility of a good or service - it's usefulness and value to actual consumers - has nothing to do with how much labor went into it. You can work for hours and hours on something stupid, but that doesn't make your "something stupid" intrinsically valuable. It might be utterly worthless.

 

[Tehon]

It

You mean that people are not equal and some are more skilled than others when undertaking the same task?

The value averages out. The value is equal to the socially necessary labor time for completing a task given the technology available at a given time in history.

Uh... ok. So, if it takes the same "socially necessary labor time" to polish a turd (and get it really, really shiny) as it does to produce a vial of life-saving medicine - are you contending that the turd and the medicine have the same intrinsic value?

Assuming that it took more time to develop the skills necessary to produce a vial of life saving medicine. The value contained in the life saving medicine would be greater.

Assume it didn't. Maybe the people working on the medicine just got lucky. If the labor invested on the turd and the medicine were the same, would they have the same intrinsic value in your view?

I know better.

It's a hypothetical, dork. Are you not good with those?

The point you're running away from here, is that the utility of a good or service - it's usefulness and value to actual consumers - has nothing to do with how much labor went into it. You can work for hours and hours on something stupid, but that doesn't make your "something stupid" intrinsically valuable. It might be utterly worthless.

If a commodity has no utility it doesn't get produced. No one will buy it.

You're still fishing.

 

[dblack]

It

Uh... ok. So, if it takes the same "socially necessary labor time" to polish a turd (and get it really, really shiny) as it does to produce a vial of life-saving medicine - are you contending that the turd and the medicine have the same intrinsic value?

Assuming that it took more time to develop the skills necessary to produce a vial of life saving medicine. The value contained in the life saving medicine would be greater.

Assume it didn't. Maybe the people working on the medicine just got lucky. If the labor invested on the turd and the medicine were the same, would they have the same intrinsic value in your view?

I know better.

It's a hypothetical, dork. Are you not good with those?

The point you're running away from here, is that the utility of a good or service - it's usefulness and value to actual consumers - has nothing to do with how much labor went into it. You can work for hours and hours on something stupid, but that doesn't make your "something stupid" intrinsically valuable. It might be utterly worthless.

If a commodity has no utility it doesn't get produced. No one will buy it.

That's demonstrably untrue. Lot's of things get produced that people don't buy. That's how businesses fail. Are you contending that the products people don't want are just as valuable as those they do?