Re: Capital and Mark Monson's Land

Mark Monson wrote:

> "Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1115214102.574497.240850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > The choice here is wether the Capitalist receives a recurring
benefit
> > and the workers bear a reduced return for their labour, as would be
the
> > case if the Capitalist owns the Capital and hired workers with
wages.

> This is Marx's error: The idea that ownership of tools gives
monopoly leverage over
> labor.

No, Marx's error was thinking it was possible to achieve communism via
the State.
But Marx is irrelevant here, as I have made no reference to him.

> Marx attempts to draw a line between simple and more complex tools
but in
> the end the line must be arbitrary and his chain of reasoning fails.

Why rebut Marx when his reasoning has not been presented? Why not
instead attempt to refute the argument I actually made, which is rooted
in the dual liability that Capital has, and the impossibility of
settling its liability to land.

How, in your oppinion, has the Capitalist settled his liability to
land? Or do you not think that Capital has any liability to land?

> In a system where land use is open to all on equal terms, there is no
way for tool
> ownership, however complex, to give monopoly advantage over labor.

However, in the Capitalist mode of production the price of labour is
driven towards its cost by competition, yet the price of Capital is
kept above its cost by all sorts of anti-competetive practices that are
in some part granted and protected by the State. Examples include
legal/financial barriers to entry, specious market and safety
regulations and outright collussion.

In theory, with perfect competition, the price of Capital should be
driven to its cost, so therefore the only way for the Capitalist to get
any long term yield is exactly by antcompetetive practices.

What is the advantage of this system?

My claim remains, that the only uncontested direction of the transfer
of Capital is towards mutual ownership.

> Tools must be constructed by labor and maintained by labor,

Then it makes the most sence to construct a system where tools are
available to labour at cost, without any requirement to pay interest.

> and made up material
> that was originally land.

Yes, and as the liability for labour can be settled with wages, it is
most efficient to leave capital as mutual property, exactly as you
propose land should be.

> Thus there are only two fundamental factors of production: land
> and labor. Capital is the product that is recycled to aid in
greater production.
> As long as the fundamental factors are free to engage, there can be
no monopoly in
> derivatives of those fundamentals.

Except that if Capital yield is private, and its formation reduced the
value of Land, then Rent "leaks" into Capital Yield and further that
this creates a situation where there is incentive to push the price of
Capital above its cost, and thus reduce the efficiency of the market.

Regards.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... It is axiomatic that natural resources have NO COST. ... "land") are a product of land and labor (labor of course ... This observation holds true for ALL goods, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... whether or not you assume land is free. ... Cost is equal to the value attached to the satisfaction that must be ... In this case we speak not of the "value" of labor ... This observation holds true for ALL goods, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... cost actually being the correct focus as opposed to _value_. ... Land has no cost. ... All costs are labor. ... economy and of labor. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... cost actually being the correct focus as opposed to _value_. ... Land has no cost. ... All costs are labor. ... All of the exalted economists take an aristocratic view of the ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Labor theory of cost
    ... cost actually being the correct focus as opposed to _value_. ... Land has no cost. ... All costs are labor. ... economy and of labor. ...
    (sci.econ)
Loading