Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!
From: jmh (j_m_h_at_cox.net)
Date: 09/07/04
- Next message: William F Hummel: "Re: A Money Supply Question"
- Previous message: VHarris001: "Re: A Money Supply Question"
- 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: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 14:19:48 -0400
Albert wrote:
> jmh wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>
> No. But it apparently is for you, who believe the distinction between
> the factors of production is 'pointless.'
Please document that claim you say I've made. Where do
I say the distinction between factors of production
is pointless? What I said was pointless was the
distinction between "/potentially/" productuve
and productive in this case. The reaso it's a pointless
distinctiction is that a person will never be able
to produce the same output per unit of pure human labor
no matter how skilled as that person will when working
with some tool.
You want to use the fact that humans have intellegence
and the ability to act on their own to claim that it's
only the person who is productive when output is produced
by a more complex production process than mere human
labor working alone. The problem with that is that
human labor's output is 0 if it's not working with
something (Land/nature at the very least). Your argument
then proves that people are not productive. Hardly what
you want to claim but that's the result of the distinction
are making.
You also attempt to impose a separate distinction between
the factors of production where by the owners of Labor are
able to rent the factor input or keep the total output
of that factor input working alone or with other
inputs that person owns all for themselves but somehow
claim that owners of Capial or Land do not enjoy the same
property rights with their factor inputs. No justification
for this asymmetric approach to input ownership rights
is offered--perhaps you don't even recognize you've
done this.
>>
>>>> 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.
Care to justify your claim or is you silence an adminssion
that you created a strawman there?
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Agreed. But you have forgotten the topic: you said, "capital, and
> capital equipment are productive", which is false.
If you making the distinction between tools and financing
then it's not falce, merely more indirect. In a monetary
world financing a factor of production as much as any
physical piece of equipment or labor time or tract of
land--it's merely a perfectly generalized factor which
can easily and readily be converted into one of the
other three. If that's dificult concept to grasp think
of the idean in the context of various organizational
or managerial labor activities that have nothing
directly to do with the production. Remove the, e.g.,
logistic management, and output will fall even though
the managers/organizers never step foot on the assembly
line or manufacturing floor. It's a more generalized
form of labor and it's relationship to production
and it's productivy is not directly observable or
easily defined.
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> When is the last time you saw a shovel digging a hole by itself?
When was the last time you saw a human making steel
without a blast fernace? Does that mean labor in
steel production has a productivity rating of 0?
>>
>> Both you and Ron appear to be things like self-purpose,
>> self-awareness, intelligence and similar human--and even
>> animal--charcateristics with productive capacity.
>
>
> (I think there is a typo in that statement) We are discussing the
> commonly accepted meanings in economics of the factors: Land, Labor and
> Capital. You still don't seem to understand those common definitions.
That comment is not related to the input factors but
to your apparently understanding of the concept of
productivy--which is not at all the one commuonly
understood and used in economics. Productivity is not
a defining characteristic of the input factors, it's
merely an attribute all will have.
>>>> 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.
Except that labor is also unable to produce on it's own
so the self-animation distinction is not informative
or enlighting in understanding the contribution of
the various inputs in terms of output or their contribution
to that outout.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>
> Correct. It is what *you* said that is the contradiction.
Still no contridiction and my statement "that is not
what you said above" refers to your statements. Your
original claim was that only labor is productive and
not that labor and capital are more productive than
just labor. You've added that aspect since I pointed out
that the presense of capital increases outpt--which
means that, ceterus paribus, capital is productive.
That when you started the whole "potentially productive"
and "active agent" line of argument.
I suppose you assumed all the without have said it but
you did chage what you were writing, which was what I
was pointing out.
>>
>>>> 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?
>
>
> Rephrasing your demand in different words doesn't change anything. Do
> your own homework.
>
>>
>> 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 atnote
that Nell
>> this point.
>
>
> Is that a cartoon?
>
>>> > 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.
>
>
> LOL. Read your own posts. You said: "capital, and capital equipment
> are productive".
Apparently you are unable to understand the logical argument
or are simply interested only in being argumentative.
>> I merely claim it is also productive.
>
>
> < sigh > No, it is not even 'also' productive. There are *three*
> factors of production. That *means* that all three are required for
> production. But only *one* factor is the active agent: Labor. The
> other factors are used by Labor.
The division of facotrs of produciton in to three categories
is merely one of historical conditions and simplicity.
It's not like these categories are anything but logical
devices nor is there any requirement that they be taken
as universal truths never to vary. Depending on what
specific question one needs to address those categories
can be, and have, been expanded and contracted. In fact
Locke started with only two.
>>> 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.
>
>
> Liar. See above.
I think we know why your posting now so little more need be
said.
jmh
- Next message: William F Hummel: "Re: A Money Supply Question"
- Previous message: VHarris001: "Re: A Money Supply Question"
- 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
|
