Re: Labor theory of cost
- From: jmh <jmhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 20:42:46 GMT
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 08:29:44 -0700, The Trucker in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On Tue, 29 May 2007 00:59:28 +0000, jmh wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 10:04:06 -0700, The Trucker in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 15:58:00 +0000, jmh wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2007 20:48:19 -0700, The Trucker in sci.econ
confessed to the world saying:
On Sun, 27 May 2007 23:33:57 +0000, jmh wrote:
The conomic costs are critical to political economic analysis
because that's extact what is driving the soocial process.
Rather lumpy but essentially correct. Gald to see that we agree about
cost actually being the correct focus as opposed to _value_.
The cost of Land still exists regardless of who's collecting
the rent.
Land has no cost. The APPARENT cost of particular locations is _labor_
Then you are not talking about economic cost.
Oh but I am. All costs are labor. That is my point.
The economic cost of Land is the foregone opportunities it
could have been used for.
The mantra repeated. You gonna count some beads, too?
That is simply neoconomic horsecrap. The entire purpose of neoclassical
econ is to exalt the preiminence and authority of the "nobles" who
decide how everything is to be allocated. In the minds and mouths of the
You're clearly delusional.
No. All of the exalted economists take an aristocratic view of the
economy and of labor. Most especially in the neoclassical view labor is
simply a means to an aristocratic end. Labor (people) are commodities to
be the used and discarded.
authoritarian nobility the amount of work put forth by the actual people
is irrelevant and "God and Country" are the objective of economic
activity. And they, of course, will maintain their positions of authority
based on their supposed moral and God given "rights" supported by a
virtual army of neoclassical handmaidens. It is classical econ on bad
steroids. After all, Smith's book was about "The Wealth of Nations", not
"The Wealth of the Common People". A slow and careful reading of "Progress
and Poverty" is recommended. Henry George was not an economist. Ask
yourself who pays the economist.
If you wish to continue claiming Land has no cost then you're
claiming that human are not facing any resource constrain
on land -- which would mean that Land cannot really generate
any rent.
I dealt with this in the verbiage you have so conveniently deleted.
Perhaps you'd like to resurrect it and actually address it as opposed to
crouching in the corner with your index fingers crossed in front of you,
Land has no cost.
Feel free to repost it.
OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The APPARENT cost of particular locations is _labor_
saved by virtue of that location. In a good location I need only work
half as much to produce the same personal benefits for myself as I would
have in some other location. I can afford to give up some amount of my
produce as payment for the use of the location and still PROFIT from the
benefit of the location. I labor LESS for the net personal benefits I
receive after paying the rent or I would not locate myself in that
location. The net cost to me in labor for the use of the location is zero
or less. And the fact remains that labor is what is being expended for the
land rights and the benefits I receive, i.e. all goods are produced by
labor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above discussion it is seen that the actual cost of land use
(using the term generically here) is a big fat zero. Ricardian rent is
not a true economic cost because no additional labor was expended to
create it. I is the quintessential unearned income and the privatization
of it is merely a theft of surplus value that rightfully belongs to all.
The value does not belong to a "landowner" or to the person working the
particular plot of land. The surplus value is a social endowment. The
same mechanism operates on economies of division and specialization of
labor in that the "clumping" of people into close proxiomity is necessary
to the division and specialization or labor. The clumping gives rise to
scarcity rents which are again unearned surplus value. Land rents do not
represent a "cost" because no additional labor is expended for the use of
the land. The proper recipient of the VALUE is the issue.
If one assumes pigs are birds it readily follows that pigs can
fly. Neither the premise or the conclusion holds true regardless
of the valid form of argument (though at least one step is
left out in the above).
You're assumption of zeor cost to use the land requires the
assumption that not other activites have been prevented by
your use. That means land is not an economic good. In such a
case land has no an economic cost.
The claim that surplus value belongs to all is the same as the
claim nature belongs to all. It's not a fact. What we do see
in a market economy is a division of surplus between the
producers and the consumers that are actually directly
involved in those exchanges.
jmh
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Labor theory of cost
- From: The Trucker
- Re: Labor theory of cost
- References:
- Re: Labor theory of cost
- From: The Trucker
- Re: Labor theory of cost
- Prev by Date: Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- Next by Date: Re: Economic Rent As Sum of Externalities
- Previous by thread: Re: Labor theory of cost
- Next by thread: Re: Labor theory of cost
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
