Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!
From: jmh (j_m_h_at_cox.net)
Date: 09/07/04
- Next message: jmh: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Previous message: The Trucker: "Re: Mexico wants to introduce silver coins as currency"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 20:13:27 -0400
Albert wrote:
> jmh wrote:
>
>> Albert wrote:
>>
>>> jmh wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> capital, and capital equiment are productive
>>>
>>>
>>> No. They are only /potentially/ productive. The must be used by
>>> Labor to be productive.
>>
>>
>> That's a pointless distinction.
>
>
> So, you reject the idea that there are three factors of production:
> Land, Labor and Capital.
No. Is english a second language for you?
>> Clearly the man using
>> the backhoe is able to move vast amounts more earth
>> than he can with his hands. To suggest that the difference
>> in output only indicates a potential is misleading.
>
>
> Where did I suggest such a thing? I only pointed out that Capital
> without Labor is useless. It will just sit there and rot or rust.
And labor without other factors of production--in a very
simple production activty at least nature (Land) and
in today's modern world of production tools (Capital)
is also useless on its own.
Since the tool increase the output of the laborer working
without it that tool is productive in real terms: more
actual output results from the activity. That's not a
"potentially" productive item any more than labor is
"potentially" productive.
Both you and Ron appear to be things like self-purpose,
self-awareness, intelligence and similar human--and even
animal--charcateristics with productive capacity.
>> That
>> difference in output only arise due the productivity of
>> the tool (at least in the simple case we have here--
>> clearly the operator is more skilled labor than the
>> one diggin with hands and we might rightfully consider
>> that a increase level of labor input).
>
>
> Tools are not productive. Tools just sit there. Tools, when used by
> Labor, enhance the ability of Labor to produce.
>
>>
>> The fact remains, there is a very clear, identifiable
>> and real--not merely potential--increase in output that
>> is realized when labor and tools are compbined.
>
>
> Which is what I said above. You said, "capital, and capital equipment
> are productive", which contradicts your paragraph immediately above.
No contridication at all, and that is not what you said above.
>> The only question is what are the relative contibutions
>> and neither you or Ron offer any basis to assume that
>> the existing allocation of output to factor inputs is
>> unfair or unjust from a productivity standpoint--
>
>
> It is widely known and accepted that the existing allocation of output
> between the three input factors is unjust. To demand that the proof be
> resubmitted each and every time someone points this out again is just a
> cheap trick.
> which
Widely know by whom and on what basis?
Suggesting one support their claims and accusations
is hardly a "cheap trick".
I keep hearing the "I don't think that word means what you
think it means." from _The Princess Bride_ in my head at
this point.
> > is the basis of the argument you both are attempting to
> > make.
>
> I attempted to make no argument. I merely pointed out that, contrary to
> your statement, capital alone is not productive. Labor is the only
Please support that acusation. No where have I claimed
capital alone is productive. I merely claim it is also
productive.
> active agent in the process of production. I have said nothing about
> what, if anything, is due to the supplier of tools for the rent of his
> tools or to the gambler for his risk-taking.
>
And again I would point out you are confusing "active agent"
with productuve. The two concepts are not the same.
jmh
- Next message: jmh: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Previous message: The Trucker: "Re: Mexico wants to introduce silver coins as currency"
- In reply to: Albert: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Next in thread: Albert: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Reply: Albert: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
