Re: Distribution & Redistribution

From: The Trucker (mikcob_at_verizon.net)
Date: 11/28/04 

Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:09:53 -0800

William C Colley wrote:

> Greetings All,
>
> The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:<co92qe1vs@news2.newsguy.com>...
>> William C Colley wrote:
>>
>> > Greetings All,
>> >
>> > The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> > news:<co0fp902bgu@news4.newsguy.com>...
>> >> royls@telus.net wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 19 Nov 2004 06:57:39 -0800, chriscoll@panola.com (William C
>> >> > Colley) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Big delete.........
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>"even if only the mentation required to know of the existance of
>> >> >>said land andto desire it and to physically bring the human to it."
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Deny to us again how creativity and imagination are not products of
>> >> >>human labor Mr. Roy?
>> >> >
>> >> > Creativity and imagination are not land. You seem very determined
>> >> > not to permit yourself any accurate communication or clear thought
>> >> > on this subject.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> So it would seem. Creativity and imagination are "capital".
>> >>
>> >
>> > How so Mr. Trucker? I honestly don't see how the definition of capital
>> > covers creativity and imagination at all.
>>
>> Here Is an example for you:
>>
>
> Thank you for the external reference.
>
> A quick check of the source indicates that GreaterVoice.org appears to
> support Jeffersonian ideas as it has on it's front page a picture and
> quotes from Thomas Jefferson, and this first sentence introduction of
> their assesment of the current state of the US Federal Government,
> which is not too much different from my own: "Our House of
> Representatives was defined by The United States Constitution to be
> the seat of government power. Our nation, as it currently exists, is a
> Fascist State run by an appointed king and his court of privileged law
> makers."
>
>
>>
>> http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/TheBerryPatch.php "----------------------
>>
>> It occurs to this man that he might take a handful of berries home and
>> "save" them for the next day and perhaps he can forgo the next day's
>> walks (4.5 hours of labor).
>>
>
> It could also occur to this man that he could take a handfull of
> berries home today, and still go out on the next days walk anyway.

You are missing the point and you need to read the whole thing. All I
am saying here is that the man realizes that he cannot carry enough
berries in his hand to allow him to forgo a trip to the berry patch.

>>
>> But he can't carry enough berries in one day. So he
>> labors an extra .5 hours each day and saves a handful each day.
>>
>
> But you just said that the man would forgo the next days 4.5 hours of
> labor.

NO. I said he _wants_ to do that. He can't. (not without a basket).

>>
>> His work day is now 7 hours a day and he accumulates one meal a day.
>>
>
> There are so many assumptions in this one sentence alone that any
> meaningful discussion of how long "his work day is now" has been lost.

You need to read the story I suppose, but be forwarned that it is messed
up: omit the words (half a meal) and substitute (a meal). I am
correcting it and uploading it tonight.

>>
>> And he therefore gets one day off out of 3.
>>
>
> What if he doesn't take one day out of 3 off, but rather one day out
> of 9, or one day out of every two?

His _objective_ is liesure. He is seeking to maximize leisure. He
wants the most freedom from drudgery he can get. He can't take one
day out of two because he needs 3 days to accumulate the berries
necessary to take a day off.

> You drop in some purely
> hypothetical scenario about an imaginary man collecting berries for
> food and some numbers and expect me to agree with you that, yes, all
> of this is actually making some sort of point? I apologize for
> sounding abrupt Mr. Trucker, and will read the rest of this story with
> less questions as to what it's supposed to mean.

You asked for an illustration of how I can see creativity and
imagination as "capital" and I have given it to you. Capital is that
which reduces the amount of discomfort or labor necessary to the
satisfaction of some given amount of human wants.

>>
>> The berries at his hillside home are
>> savings. These savings are worth 1.5 hours of labor when viewed as a
>> cost. But when viewed as actual value they are worth 7.0 hours of labor
>> because that is one day's work. The "investment" of 1.5 hours of
>> additional labor over the course of 3 days has created a pile of berries
>> worth 7.0 hours of labor because that is the labor that one day on the
>> berry picking job would entail.
>>
>
> Left out one very important detail from this story Mr. Trucker, risk.

You could at least read ahead a little....

> There is no way to know except after the fact that the "investment"
> actually paid off, as any number of things might have happened to the
> berries before the end of the 3 day period to make them unavaliable to
> the man saving them. Risk, Mr. Trucker, is absent in this fairy tale.

Nope. It is not absent at all. We BOTH recognize that risk is part
of the deal.

>>
>> The difference between the cost and the actual value we will style
>> as interest. Thus we say that he has derived 5.5 hours of interest from
>> his investment. By virtue of the possession of this new "wealth" he can
>> spend a day in "freedom" doing whatever he will. And if we are to stay
>> within some reasonable confines we must acknowledge that this is a
>> manifestation of intellectual capital.
>>
>
> All you are describing is an individual willing to take a risk and try
> and mold the future to his liking. Nothing says that he will succeed.
> I agree that imagination and creativity preceed the creation of wealth
> and capital, but by themselves they are not capital. Capitalists of
> all sorts must manifest their creativity and wealth in the market to
> profit from them.

What market??? This is one man alone in his world. There ain't no market.
That is one of the major points brought out by "The Berry Patch".

We get back to the 3 (I say 4) factors of production with each factor
having a distinct "return". I've seen folks claim that the return is
wages but never rent.

>>
>> The importance of distinguishing intellectual capital from the berries
>> themselves cannot be over emphasized. The berries can be seen as gold or
>> dollars or units of labor. This "currency" did not copulate and have
>> little baby labor hours or little baby gold pieces or little baby dollars
>> while sitting on a rock or a shelf or in a safe.
>>
>
> On the contrary, the very orgin of the word "capital" or "of the
> head", derives from the counting of cattle.
>
> from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=cattle
>
> Main Entry: cat·tle
> Pronunciation: 'ka-t&l
> Function: noun plural
> Etymology: Middle English catel, from Old North French, personal
> property, from Medieval Latin capitale, from Latin, neuter of
> capitalis of the head -- more at CAPITAL
>
>
>
> Cattle have been known to copulate and have little babies. In the
> example you give, of course the berriers did not duplicate themselves,
> but you ignore the fact that there is risk to storing the berries,
> they could be stolen or spoiled. Also, the berries themselves harbor
> seeds, which can be planted and grown into bushes which will yield far
> more berries.

All of this is considered. But the return in this case is not from
planting the berries or from then having babies in a safe. The berries
_CAN_ be "capital" in and of themselves and the _COULD_ be "capital" when
and if they are planted. Sheep and cows could also be seen as capital.

>>
>> The return in labor saved (the
>> interest) is a return to the intellect of the berry gatherer. This return
>> has very little to do with a "time preference" or any other ridiculous
>> posturing that would legitimize a return to loaned money. The
>> implications of this observation are enormous when we later discuss money
>> and rent. Interest is not the return to tight fisted self denial.
>> Interest is the return to intelligence and to risk taking. The birds or
>> the bears might have discovered and eaten the berries before the berry
>> picker (the saver) could get the benefit of them and that is risk. We
>> also see that the berries are worthless if the berry picker lets them sit
>> too long. He will become inebriated perhaps if the berries turn to wine.
>>
>
> I must admit that the above example did not enlighten me as to your
> statement that creativity and imagination are themselves capital, as
> opposed to pre-requisites for the creation of capital.

If these are not labor and not land then they must be capital. I have
seen some folks claim they are labor and the return is thus styled
as wages.

>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Existing and having an attitude is what gives value to anything,
>> >> >>including land.
>> >> >
>> >> > The land and its value are not at all the same thing. The value of
>> >> > land is indeed created by human labor. Just not the owner's.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Only if you insist on using the word "utility" as "value in use"
>> >> and then claiming that "value" and "utility" are different.
>> >> See below.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>It is not inaccurate to state that in the absence of humans land
>> >> >>value does not exist.
>> >> >
>> >> > Right. It is just completely different from your false statement
>> >> > above.
>> >> >
>>
>> >> >>I have explicitly stated that matter and energy already exist. Given
>> >> >>matter, energy, and technology humans can create land Mr. Roy,
>> >> >>that's the point I'm trying to explain.
>> >> >
>> >> > But not land in the economic sense. That's the point _I'm_ trying
>> >> > to explain.
>> >>
>> >> In the economic sense land is the stuff explicitly _NOT_ created by
>> >> man's efforts.
>> >>
>> >> >>Land is not the source of value, the
>> >> >>human mind is.
>> >>
>> >> Human existence is the source of value. Bears and fish don't have
>> >> any use for the term. No humans, no value. But then it would not
>> >> matter.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I think this is the point I am trying to explain to Mr. Roy myself,
>> > Mr. Trucker.
>>
>> Understand it first.....
>>
>
> So it seems if I read your above example correctly, I think we are
> having minor semantic differences.

We are having MAJOR semantic differences. Most disagreements in econ
are about the definition of good and the imprecise definition of terms.

>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > We are talking about two separate issues: the source of the land,
>> >> > which is not human labor, and the source of its value, which is.
>> >>
>> >> Without man, NOTHING has value, but without man, who cares? Land has
>> >> value because of human needs and wants. And the LESS labor needed
>> >> to survive or flourish on the land, the more "valuable" the land
>> >> will be. You both seem to be making the mistake of saying man =
>> >> labor.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Labor cannot be done without a human to do it, insomuch as labor is an
>> > application of human will to an inanimate object such as land.
>>
>> While that is so, a machine reduces the amount of labor required
>> to produce an item. In _effect_ some of the items must be being produced
>> without labor. But there are just as many men as before and now there
>> are more items (goods). Clearly there is a distinction between man and
>> his labor. Further: Man and the satisfaction of his desires are the focus
>> of economics. Labor is the cost of that satisfaction.
>>
>
> I do not see anything disagreeable with the above statement.
>
>> >> >
>> >> > Please try to keep these two separate issues separate rather than
>> >> > constantly trying to confound them.
>> >>
>> >> They are separate. But value is being misunderstood here.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Perhaps I am misunderstanding value here Mr. Trucker, but I agree with
>> > you that value is a human-derived concept.
>>
>> Most people misunderstand value and you will probably think that is
>> ME also. But _ECONOMIC_ value derives from the simple axiom that man
>> will seek to satisfy his wants while subjecting himself to as little
>> labor and discomfort as possible.
>>
>
> The definition of economic value as I understand it is "the amount (of
> money or goods or services) that is considered to be a fair equivalent
> for something else" (from
> http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/economic+value).
>
> I don't know if I can agree your statement "as little labor and
> discomfort as possible" without comparing it to "fair equivalent for
> something else" in the definition. That is what one man would consider
> "little labor and discomfort" another might consider much labor and
> discomfort, and people obviously differ significantly on what they
> consider to be "fair equivalent".

These differences in skill and differences in perception are the basis
of the win win reality of trades. Nonetheless, the measure of value is
the amount of _my_ labor or the amount of _my_ command over the labor of
others I will be willing to trade for the object of my desires.

> But I am willing to tentatively
> accept that most people seek to minimize what they consider
> unnecessary labor and discomfort in seeking to fulfill their desires.

It is very fortunate that we are not all adept at exactly the same thing.

>>
>> If I regard land as a variable (some is better than other land) or if I
>> see capital as a variable then I will seek that which relieves me of the
>> most labor.
>>
>
> I don't understand this sentence. Land has variable value based upon
> the individual considering it true.

No. Land has value based on the amount of labor saved by virtue
of its use and this is somewhat independent of the opinion of the
individual. Land also has value based on the satisfaction of the
desires of the tenant of the land and this later part may well be
only an individual opinion. In The Berry Patch, the land that
produces the berries is more valuable than the other land. This
is not based on some opinion about how beautiful the sunrise
might be.

> Capital is a variable in some
> senses, but I don't know how you are talking about it.

A better tractor is the one that is most productive. Same with
land. The more productive these things are the more valuable
they are.

>>
>> And it is this
>> reduction in labor that I will use to _VALUE_ each of these non
>> consumable objects.
>>
>
> So you are stating that it is only the amount of labor that some
> non-consumable object saves you, that is makes you have to do less
> off, which is valuable to you about that object? That is, if you owned
> land, it is only the amount of "labor" which that land would save you
> which would make it valuable to you personally? What if someone wanted
> to own land with the explicit goal of working on it and making it more
> valuable?

Then if they started with land that was totally unsuited to the
purpose to which they would be directing their "improvements" they
would spend very little on the acquisition. Thus the "value"
of the acquired land would be very low. But they would pay considerably
more for land that is "almost" suitable as it sits because they would
need to expend less labor after the acquisition.

>>
>> There are also stores of value and force to
>> be considered. A gold coin is such a store of value because people
>> _believe_ it is.
>>
>
> Gold has been valuable for it's scarcity, it's ablilty to be worked as
> jewlery and subdivided, it's durability and it's density for at least
> 7 thousand years. These days it has value as a consumable in
> electronics also.

(sigh)... OK.

>>
>> It is a store of value because it is what the pirates
>> and the government taxman, and the thieves will take as opposed to
>> taking your chickens or your life and we all _know_ that.
>>
>
> Yes those who would use force to take from others what they cannot
> gain through peaceful consensual trade do like to steal gold.
>
>>
>> As such
>> the gold can command the labor of others because they seek this
>> means by which they might buy off the bogey man or in their turn
>> use it to cammand the labor of others.
>>
>
> It is a commodity, and for primarily the reasons I listed above it has
> been the commodity of choice for human civilizations for thousands of
> years. Nothing special about gold though, aside from that.
>
>>
>> http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/value.php
>>
>
>
>
>> >> >>You make a fundamental mistake in your description Mr. Roy.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, in fact my description was entirely accurate.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I disagree with your use of "value" and it is that definition that is
>> >> causing lots of confusion right here and now.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Mr. Roy is causing me lots of confusion by attempting to equate my
>> > owning land with me advocating slavery.
>>
>> He gets a little brusk at times but the analogy is apt.
>>
>
> Only if you imagine a world in which the rights of individuals were
> superceeded by the rights of landowners. I don't imagine such a world
> myself, but that doesn't mean I don't want to own my own land where I
> live and would like to acquire more. I'm just not too keen about going
> into debt to get some, or at least not with the level of risk it would
> take at this time.

Yet this world of superseded rights is the correct view of the current
world. The situation is obviously tolerable or we would have riots
and the like. But that does not mean that the rights are not being
superseded.

>> >> >
>> >> > More accurately, using words according to their definitions is not a
>> >> > constraint you share. This practise is technically known as
>> >> > "lying."
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Sometimes it is simply a disagreement over the definitions of words
>> >> and other times it is a different idea of what "good" might be.
>> >>
>> >
>> > As far as I can tell Mr. Roy considers owing humans and owning land to
>> > be equally immoral.
>>
>> In that he is essentially correct.
>>
>
> So far he has been less than persuasive. How about you Mr. Trucker?
> Can you point to the individual I own as a result of owning my own
> home and land?

(snicker) It is a matter of depriving one of their rights. Chattel
slavery was a way to do that. But forcing people to pay for the
use of land that is as much theirs as yours is also a way to deprive
them of rights.

>> >>
>> >> I see the word "value" used all over the place here and I know that
>> >> Roy L has another word called "utility" that seems to be "personal
>> >> value", or "value in use". But, darn: There's the "value" word again
>> >> in the definition of "utility".
>> >>
>> >> Land has "value" with no market and no enforcement of property tights
>> >> and no kings or priests. Land is good or bad based on the ease
>> >> with which man can survive and flourish on the land. Man will migrate
>> >> to the best land. Man will migrate to the most "valuable" land. And
>> >> that is the land that will provide him with comfort for the least
>> >> amount of labor. I see no reason to differentiate the "utility" of
>> >> the land from the "value" of the land.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I agree with this.
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Learn this or
>> >> >>condem yourself to talking nonsense Mr. Roy.
>> >> >
>> >> > <yawn> I think readers can judge which of us is careful to use
>> >> > words clearly and accurately and which is constantly trying to play
>> >> > it deuces wild.
>> >> >
>> >> >>> >But if the government will use force to get money
>> >> >>> >I otherwise wouldn't give it, that's a tax.
>> >>
>> >> But what about when the land owner forces the non owner to give up
>> >> the fruits of his labor in rent?
>> >>
>> >
>> > It depends.
>>
>> It does not.
>>
>
> My apologies Mr. Trucker but part of my reply got mangled past the "It
> depends" part. I had intended to qualify it with a question about the
> way the word "force" was used above but failed to do so. So in that
> respect I agree that a specific land owner cannot "force" a specific
> non-land owner to do anything except perhaps to leave the landowners
> property.
>
>
>>
>> You should not take the fruits of another man's labor by
>> depriving him of his rights. And access to the land is a right to
>> every man born on this planet.
>>
>
> I suggest you look to other geographical regions than the USA to
> address the plight of those born without rights Mr. Trucker. The USA
> isn't perfect, and undoubtedly our current system of property
> ownership and taxes could be made far more libertarian and just, but
> if people want to pretend that paying property taxes, or land value
> taxes, gives them ownership as opposed to sole and exclusive use over
> a particular piece of property, then how does that harm you or anyone
> else?

This is a very fair question and as expressed it cannot be answered in
any way but to say that there is little if any difference in renting
the right to use the land (taxes) and "feeling" that you _own_
the land. That is the very amazing part of this whole topic. People
currently _rent_ the land and the _rent_ is the taxes. You don't pay
and you be gone/evicted/removed. The problems arise due to the
inadequacy of the tax and the improper use of the tax proceeds.

>>
>> Religion forces us into sovereignties > and so there are enclosures
>> because of this.
>>
>
> I disagree that the innate instinctual desire to own land is religious
> in orgin. Territorial instinct far predates the development of
> religion.

Didn't mean to infer that. I was addressing why land rent redistribution
must remain contained within sovereignties and why the community must
be allowed to enclose (separate) the land of one sovereignty from
another.

>>
>> But within any sovereignty the land should not be enclosed and
>> individually owned.
>>
>
> Interesting choice of word, sovereignty. Perhaps under a radical
> enough libertarian type society there could be situations where land
> "ownership" could be questioned, but it really just gets back to who
> makes the decision about a specific plot of ground. Individuals do,
> and if someone pays the land value tax on a specific piece of dirt
> then why not let them own it? After all, they're only mortal and
> eventually the community will get it back, added value and all.

I share that sentiment and most Georgists also share it. But corporations
are immortal and thus cannot be allowed to own land and there must be
inheritance taxes to get the land back. The payment of ongoing rent
gets around both of these problems. 

-- 
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but
the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough
to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy
is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson.  http://GreaterVoice.org

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Distribution & Redistribution
    ... > (4.5 hours of labor). ... berries home today, and still go out on the next days walk anyway. ... >> application of human will to an inanimate object such as land. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Distribution & Redistribution
    ... > How so Mr. Trucker? ... But he can't carry enough berries in one day. ... These savings are worth 1.5 hours of labor when viewed as a cost. ... > application of human will to an inanimate object such as land. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: More Anarchism with Roy L
    ... >>>Yet the Capital has not settled its liability to land, ... Without a particular item of capital, labor produces X. ... as private capitalists would be more likely to ... >>>from the Time Value of Money, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: The Georgists v. Thomas Paine
    ... distinguish land from labor and capital. ... It can be consumed or recycled back to the production process as capital by landlords, capitalists, or workers. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... I enter "economic cost" in the search window at wikipedia and I get ... land is the berries I didn't pick because I didn't want to pick them. ... system in which labor is a commodity. ...
    (sci.econ)