@TheSophist2007 none of this explains the origin of profit; in fact this is all either metaphysical ('creative entrepreneurial spirit') or surface explanation. 1)technology doesn't create value, its value is transferred to a product via the labor process. 2)efficiency is used to describe various organizational forms; 'efficiency' doesn't engage in a process of value creation. what, then, is efficiently organized? the labor process, insofar as labor power creates more value than it is bought for.
@theodorewolfgang "technology doesn't create value, its value is transferred to a product via the labor process"
arn't you excluding the creative capacity of devices, say for instance fishing rods. A person who steals a fishing rod has a greater fishing capacity than without it.
the fishing rod has created a more valuable situation of more fish.
value is not contained within things it is an evaluation by a person
@TheSophist2007 yes, technology often leads to massive production increases (decreasing the socially necessary labor time needed to produce specific commodity's, and hence their value as such). But this fact does not add an iota of explanatory power to your presumption that technology of-itself actively creates value. BTW my use of the concept of value is borrowed from Marx. If interested, read chapter of 1 of das kapital for a basic exposition of these concepts.
profit is the payment for the service of problem solving and undeconsumption of capital for investment purposes of creating more valuable processes of production
@TheSophist2007 those are both after-the-fact normative justifications for the appropriation of surplus value in the form of profit; neither has any explanatory power in answering where profit comes from. try again please.
@TheSophist2007 also, workers wages are not set via 'the amount of value they create', i.e. productivity. in fact throughout much of the western world (US, Canada, UK etc.) workers wages have consistently stagnated- and have in many cases declined- for the last thirty years in the midst of steadily increasing productivity. nice rhetoric, though.
what I said still applies via proportionality i.e. an electrician earns more than a cleaner.
the value of money is not measured purely in numbers, i.e. 5 gold coins would buy you more now than in 1500 or medieval times or prehistoric times.... Why? you ask
@TheSophist2007 no, real wages have stagnated and declined for the large majority of the population for the last thirty years or so. this is all in the midst of staggering productivity increases which have almost exclusively flowed to the top 1% of earners. see: elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/pikettyqje.pdf
@TheSophist2007 the value of labor power (as expressed in wages) is based on the socially necessary labor time needed to reproduce that labor power. obviously, the labor power of a highly skilled/trained electrician is more costly to reproduce (and hence their wage is higher) than that of a cleaner. you're right, though, that technology (for one) has led to massive productivity increases that have lowered the value of many items. (a fact that's central to marx's analysis of capitalism btw.)
Wages are the "external form" of the value of labour power. The compensation of workers in capitalist society could take all kinds of different forms, but there was always both a paid and unpaid component of labour performed. The "ideal" form of wages for capitalism are piece wages because in that case the capitalist paid only for labour which directly created those outputs adding value to his capital. It is the most common form of exploitation of labour power.
You dont think Bill Gates created something that consumers wanted using his intellect and innovation to better the lives of his fellow man? Instead you believe that the guy that packages windows in CD cases is being exploited? What a fucked up view of the way the world really works this guy has. Anyone that agrees with this idiot has put forth zero effort to understand how and why capitalism has enjoyed more success than any other economic system.
Under clean capitalism profit comes from the universal category of time preferences - which is totally ignored by Marxists. Present goods are more valuable than future good. Which is why workers agree to work in the first place.
If you consider that the productivity of the worker is higher because of the system (company/corporation) established by the owner of capital... Is it really exploitation?
Here's an example:
If you own a hamburger stand by the side of the road, you will probably make less money than if you worked at mcdonalds, for the same amount of work. Isn't it that SYSTEM which creates wealth?
You really have to look at who gets the "wealth." I bet if you calculate the take home pay by hours worked between the independent burger stand worker and a McDonalds worker, their paycheques would probably be very close. The surplus wealth created doesn't go to the super-productive worker, but to the owner of capital, so I would still say it's exploitation. Just because a hamster runs faster on a wheel than in a field doesn't mean that it's any less caged.
@annablue1 its nothing to do with how fast you run, its the technique you use in running (say jogging, going all out) and which direction you choose to run.
@alexanderthomasfu ohh pick me, umm capital comes from the previous exploitation of others? Or it is inherited from people (relatives) that established that capital through the exploitation of others i.e oppressing workers, enslaving Africans.
whoah!
profits come from efficiency not taking money from mindless robot workers.
efficiency, efficient methodology, technology, efficient resource allocation, problem solving
value and profit is created by the creative entrepeneurial spirit which we are all capable of. It is created by intellectual capital.
A workers pay increases in proption to the value they create, by having skills and ability to create for the benefit of society.
If you don't want it, you dont buy it.
TheSophist2007 1 year ago
@TheSophist2007 none of this explains the origin of profit; in fact this is all either metaphysical ('creative entrepreneurial spirit') or surface explanation. 1)technology doesn't create value, its value is transferred to a product via the labor process. 2)efficiency is used to describe various organizational forms; 'efficiency' doesn't engage in a process of value creation. what, then, is efficiently organized? the labor process, insofar as labor power creates more value than it is bought for.
theodorewolfgang 6 months ago
@theodorewolfgang "technology doesn't create value, its value is transferred to a product via the labor process"
arn't you excluding the creative capacity of devices, say for instance fishing rods. A person who steals a fishing rod has a greater fishing capacity than without it.
the fishing rod has created a more valuable situation of more fish.
value is not contained within things it is an evaluation by a person
TheSophist2007 6 months ago
@TheSophist2007 yes, technology often leads to massive production increases (decreasing the socially necessary labor time needed to produce specific commodity's, and hence their value as such). But this fact does not add an iota of explanatory power to your presumption that technology of-itself actively creates value. BTW my use of the concept of value is borrowed from Marx. If interested, read chapter of 1 of das kapital for a basic exposition of these concepts.
theodorewolfgang 6 months ago
profit is the payment for the service of problem solving and undeconsumption of capital for investment purposes of creating more valuable processes of production
TheSophist2007 6 months ago
@TheSophist2007 those are both after-the-fact normative justifications for the appropriation of surplus value in the form of profit; neither has any explanatory power in answering where profit comes from. try again please.
theodorewolfgang 6 months ago
@TheSophist2007 also, workers wages are not set via 'the amount of value they create', i.e. productivity. in fact throughout much of the western world (US, Canada, UK etc.) workers wages have consistently stagnated- and have in many cases declined- for the last thirty years in the midst of steadily increasing productivity. nice rhetoric, though.
theodorewolfgang 6 months ago
@theodorewolfgang are you talking nominally?
what I said still applies via proportionality i.e. an electrician earns more than a cleaner.
the value of money is not measured purely in numbers, i.e. 5 gold coins would buy you more now than in 1500 or medieval times or prehistoric times.... Why? you ask
Because of technological innovation!
TheSophist2007 6 months ago
@TheSophist2007 no, real wages have stagnated and declined for the large majority of the population for the last thirty years or so. this is all in the midst of staggering productivity increases which have almost exclusively flowed to the top 1% of earners. see: elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/pikettyqje.pdf
theodorewolfgang 6 months ago
@TheSophist2007 the value of labor power (as expressed in wages) is based on the socially necessary labor time needed to reproduce that labor power. obviously, the labor power of a highly skilled/trained electrician is more costly to reproduce (and hence their wage is higher) than that of a cleaner. you're right, though, that technology (for one) has led to massive productivity increases that have lowered the value of many items. (a fact that's central to marx's analysis of capitalism btw.)
theodorewolfgang 6 months ago
John Stossel is an inestimably uninformed plonker
canaan1967 1 year ago
@canaan1967 John Stossel's ignorance is limitless and appalling.
laborbund 1 year ago
Wages are the "external form" of the value of labour power. The compensation of workers in capitalist society could take all kinds of different forms, but there was always both a paid and unpaid component of labour performed. The "ideal" form of wages for capitalism are piece wages because in that case the capitalist paid only for labour which directly created those outputs adding value to his capital. It is the most common form of exploitation of labour power.
galluer 1 year ago
You dont think Bill Gates created something that consumers wanted using his intellect and innovation to better the lives of his fellow man? Instead you believe that the guy that packages windows in CD cases is being exploited? What a fucked up view of the way the world really works this guy has. Anyone that agrees with this idiot has put forth zero effort to understand how and why capitalism has enjoyed more success than any other economic system.
jjrglobal 2 years ago
Under clean capitalism profit comes from the universal category of time preferences - which is totally ignored by Marxists. Present goods are more valuable than future good. Which is why workers agree to work in the first place.
laskji 2 years ago
I think everyone should be partnership and share the profits within the corporations - LLP.
pr0gm3r 2 years ago 3
Exactly. I like Mutualist philosophy and co-operatives.
Irondukesteve 2 years ago
ummmm this is all just common sense? Profit is still total revenue.
trisix99 3 years ago
I have a question to ask you about what you said:
If you consider that the productivity of the worker is higher because of the system (company/corporation) established by the owner of capital... Is it really exploitation?
Here's an example:
If you own a hamburger stand by the side of the road, you will probably make less money than if you worked at mcdonalds, for the same amount of work. Isn't it that SYSTEM which creates wealth?
Your thoughts please?
zachbb 3 years ago
You really have to look at who gets the "wealth." I bet if you calculate the take home pay by hours worked between the independent burger stand worker and a McDonalds worker, their paycheques would probably be very close. The surplus wealth created doesn't go to the super-productive worker, but to the owner of capital, so I would still say it's exploitation. Just because a hamster runs faster on a wheel than in a field doesn't mean that it's any less caged.
annablue1 3 years ago
thanks for your reply :)
zachbb 3 years ago
@annablue1 its nothing to do with how fast you run, its the technique you use in running (say jogging, going all out) and which direction you choose to run.
You don't have to use the running wheel
TheSophist2007 1 year ago
ya but who is taking the risk in the first place? These jobs would not be there were it not for the the guy with the deep pockets.
rd1999 3 years ago
risk implies that someone has enough capital to invest. the question is: where did that capital come from?
alexanderthomasfu 3 years ago
"where do you think it comes from?"
WarVideo 3 years ago
@alexanderthomasfu: The Credit-system
InterZlatan8 2 years ago
@alexanderthomasfu ohh pick me, umm capital comes from the previous exploitation of others? Or it is inherited from people (relatives) that established that capital through the exploitation of others i.e oppressing workers, enslaving Africans.
jollyroger475 1 year ago
@rd1999:
That's the cliche-capitalism-argument.
You can organise labour and commodity-production in hundreds of different ways.
It's inevitable that commodities must be produced, however.
Before the age of Capitalism, those
relations were different, and after Capitalism they'll be different, it's just a phase, it's not a given thing, that it's always Capitalism.
The reason Capitalism is this succesful, is because it is flexible. It keeps the workers happy by raising wages
InterZlatan8 2 years ago
Very good information
riversideharp 3 years ago
This is fantastic. I just posted a video on the LTR recently myself... But I think yours is hipper...
brendanmcooney 4 years ago
If you are going to become rich than you will ALLWAYS exploit other human beings. That is the unforgiving truth!
olssonII 4 years ago
If you are going to become rich than you will ALLWAYS exploit other human beings. That is the unforgiving truth!
olssonII 4 years ago
Nice video. Corporate deregulation and dwindling unions have hurt the American worker.
crazymadbird 4 years ago