Re: Capital and Mark Monson's Land

r...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> On 11 May 2005 12:35:22 -0700, "Quirk" <quirk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >Complete fallacy of distraction, the aggregate share of the national
> >income of all workers fell, which was my point.

> And then rose again, which makes mine.

It has not risen, but has a continuous downward trend.

> > As I have clearly said,
> > these gains change the _structure_ not the _level_ of wages.

> Your claim is still false. Look at the price, in median wage hours,
> of almost any commodity over the last century.

False measure, as productivity has risen, so has supply, however the
share of productivity taken by labour versus the share taken by
property has fallen, this is what is meant by the "level of wages."

> It's not a fact, and if Bell's article says it is, please quote it to
> that effect.

Ok; from the cited article:

"Over the past decade, the corporations have precisely learned how to
turn the collective bargaining process--and the strikes--to their
advantage. The powerfull unions gain impressive wage increases;
the powerfull corporations gain an excuse for impressive price
increases."
-- Daniel Bell, The Subversion of Collective Bargaining.

> >Not in a sustained way, levels may briefly raise as price
adjustments
> >make their way through the market, but any increase in wages is
always
> >matched by an equal or greater increase in prices, as Bell
established.

> He established no such thing,

He certainly did, it is a classic and often cited article that has
helped shaped our economic understanding of organized labour today,
indeed he is among the most influential analysts of the last century.

> >As Daniel Bell's claim is better substantiated than yours,

> No, of course it isn't. If Bell claims the median wage cost of most
> purchases is rising, he's just flat wrong as a matter of objective
> fact.

That is not what he claims, your figure is irrelevant, he claims that
the share of productive output has fallen relative to the share of
property.

> >and widely
> >cited, I'll go with his analysis over this bare assertion.

> <yawn> Did Bell explain how wheat prices have stayed flat, over a
> period of time when median wages have risen almost _a_hundred_fold_?

No, because the answer is obvious; increases in productivity.

> >The only way that working people maintain their earning power is by
> >continuing to work, and even then it erodes. Working people, who did
> >not inherit any wealth, who have accumulated income generating
assets
> >is such a statistically small group it is is barely worth noting.

> Wrong. It is quite substantial, and it refutes your claims of
> impossibility.

Wrong. It is so miniscule as to be irrelevant, as even the Wall Street
Journal article (not a source I would often cite) posted here by
"MrPepper11" shows.

> >I would however, be very interested in knowing what income
generating
> >assets the welfare recipients purchased, and what assets you
> >accumulated while below the poverty line.

> Money market funds, stocks, collectibles, etc.

The average person would either lose everything, or make minimal
returns from this, certainly very few gain the sort of income escape
velocity needed to join the propertied class.

However, again, if you have some advice regarding making such
investments, that would be very valuable and I encourage you to share
it with us here.

> There is still an immense amount of labor income that is frittered
> away. Over half of GDP consists of wages (a fraction that hasn't
> changed much since it was first calculated, btw). Where does it all
> go?

A large amount goes to subsistence, including Rent.

> >One again, I will chose to believe the many studies I have read
whose
> >conclusions support the argument I am presenting, like Bell's, over
> >your unsubstantiated assertion.

> Hell, just look around you. The average fraction of median wages
> spent on groceries has fallen by _an_order_of_magnitude_ in the last
> 70 years.

Not even close to the order of magnitude by which productivity has
increased.

> >Knowledge and a mode of production that consumes most of their
> >productive time, while surrounding them with nonstop advertising
> >promoting consumer fetishism and an escapist lifestyle, along with a
> >news media that endlessly feeds them misinformation so that, even
the
> >smart ones, are economic and political Illiterates.
>
> Come off it. You have seen what goes on here: people like David
> Schwartz and Bob Kolker are not uninformed because the information is
> suppressed by the elite.

These are Dupes, Shill, Turfies and Sock puppets. (At least Kolker is,
I didn't read your thread with David Schwartz)

Either they directly, or people like them, are employed by public
relations firms, agents of property, to perpetuate nonsense, and some
simply repeat the nonsense because they are duped by the shills. There
existence supports what I am saying above.

Information is rarely suppressed by the elite, that is far too
expensive and near impossible to achieve, instead they poison the well
with misinformation, a much simpler, cheaper, and more effective
technique. Most people lack the basis by which to separate the signal
from the noise.

> They are uninformed because they
> _refuse_to_know_ the facts that are identified for them.

Because others have either paid them directly to hold those and promote
those views, or paid others to expend more effort convincing them than
you can spend.

> >When they hire labour for wages, and privately retain Capital yield,
> >they deny the worker the entire product of their labour,

> Nope. Like rent, interest is paid because the factor in question
adds
> to what labor would produce without it.

Only labour produces, yes labour has a liability to repay the costs of
acquiring the Capital, nothing more.

> The product is thus not entirely labor's, and is accordingly not all
> rightly owed to labor.

Yes it is, only that the current labourer does not represent all the
contributed labour, thus the liability.

> >thus contention is created. This contention is visible everywhere.

> There's contention over lots of things, and no reason to think the
> beneficiaries of injustice contend any less to preserve it than the
> victims do to end it.

Obviously, I mean justifiable contention, starting from the premise of
self-ownership.

> >Irrelevant conclusion. There are other factors that prevent workers
> >from producing tools outside the Capitalist mode; a lack of
> >understanding of the economic issues, a lack of ability to
accumulate
> >sufficient wealth within the Capitalist mode,

> Both of which are clearly just excuses.

To me these are clearly conditions, not 'excuses,' I see no point in
arguing that the exploited masses somehow deserve their exploitation.

I am interesting in figuring out how to end exploitation, not merely
allocating the blame.

> >legal/financial barriers
> >to entry enforced by the State and the financial elite, and many
> >others.

> Fine, let's delete all those barriers (except the ignorance and
> stupidity -- we can't fix those) and we'll see if interest
disappears.

Agreed, which brings us to the core difference in our respective
philosophies, you which to delete those barriers by gaining control of
the State and using its authority to delete these barriers.

I wish to create a model for voluntary, mutual cooperation, and
encourage workers to enclose their labour within a mode of production
that puts them in direct control of the land and capital they need to
delete these barriers in their own communities.

> >But severance tax is not rent, because it is one-time, not
recurring,

> Flat wrong. The economic rent for a one-time use is obviously a
> one-time payment.

When this use creates Capital yield it is not one time, but used for
the life of the Capital.

> No, that is flat false. _Labor_ is rewarded with wages.
> Contributions of _capital_ to production -- by people -- are rewarded
> with _interest_.

Nope. Work, and effort expended by people, us paid with wages, Interest
is collected for owning, which is not productive.

> >I'm not sure why you insist on conflating wages and capital yield.

> ?? _Me_!?!?

Yes, you continue to insist that capital yield rewards a productive
contribution by a person, when such a reward is called wages.

> See above. Mirror time, pal.

I looked. I don't see my reflection. Perhaps you are holding the mirror
wrong?

Regards.

.

Relevant Pages

  • The Challenge of Boosting Productivity
    ... HAVANA, Apr 30 - Workers are facing thorny questions related to productivity, wages, participation in decision-making or unemployment at a time when the government is discreetly adopting measures aimed at finally pulling the country out of an economic crisis that has dragged on for more than 15 years. ... the Labour Ministry approved new general regulations on wages -- in resolution 9/2008 -- which extended the system of performance-based pay to the entire business community in Cuba. ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)
  • Re: The stock market responsible for the decline in British industry?
    ... than capitalists. ... to enhance the productivity of paid labour to make profit. ... had to pay sufficient wages and provide the requisite conditions to ... wages down to starvation level and living conditions likewise and fed ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Best Economy in 5 Years? Baloney!
    ... dependent on the government so they'll vote for people to help them ... enhanced with an income, and the bigger the income, the better the ... We achieve productivity improvements through automation and working ... The answer is simple, education and training; ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: Union Millwrights
    ... improving productivity reduces the need for workers, ... dead-flat wages for lower-middle-class workers. ... You are saying that WWII was much more of a force than the Unions? ... First the White collar workers in the South and the farm states did ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Where is the Money? Who Is Getting It?
    ... The Government tells us our economy is wonderful. ... The study found that in 2004 men in their 30's had a median income of ... It also concluded that productivity has ... the national debt continues to expand and American families see slowed ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)
Loading