- 02 Feb 2023 12:34
#15263655
Does *this* about cover it -- ?
However:
---
*Or*:
---
(See the previous segment.)
'Consensual trade' is a *misnomer* since everything's been *monetized*, and even *financialized* -- meaning that:
---
B.S. -- this is a *conflation*. You're conflating those who *may* own some means of mass production, with those who may *not* own some means of mass production. The two parties are *clearly* not the same, and they have differing *class interests*, due to non- / ownership of equity capital.
The formal / official 'producer' is the one who creates actual *commodities*, for the company, for sale -- the 'widgets' or whatever -- and is paid a *wage* so that the boss employer can expropriate the worker's surplus labor value.
labor and capital, side-by-side
---
---
You just mean 'owner', and 'manager', respectively -- as distinct in class interests from that of the *workers*, over the same revenue 'pie'.
material-economic exploitation
---
It *does*, though -- how else can the product be *sold*, for *revenue*, for *profits*, if not by taking ownership of the worker-produced commodity / product / service.
You're not listening -- there are costs involved with just *showing up to work*, meaning transportation, housing, etc., *and* the risk of being laid-off, having hours reduced, etc.
Okay, thanks. I ask because you're showing *labor* costs to be a major chunk of the cost of the production process.
Could I go so far as to call those labor costs 'labor value', perhaps -- ? Note:
ckaihatsu wrote:
'Produce' -- is that white-collar, pink-collar, and/or blue-collar labor -- ?
Truth To Power wrote:
It could be any combination thereof, because the fact -- which you are trying so hard to evade -- is that at bottom it's the entrepreneur's labor of arranging for all the production factors to be applied to the production process, thus causing the product to exist. By causing the product to exist, he obtains rightful property in it without abrogating anyone else's rights.
Does *this* about cover it -- ?
What Is Cost Synergy?
Cost synergy is the savings in operating costs expected after the merger of two companies. Cost synergies are cost reductions due to the increased efficiencies in the combined company. Cost synergy is one of three major synergy types, with the other two being revenue and financial synergies.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/costsynergy.asp
However:
[F]or capitalism to generate greater profits than the home market can yield, the merging of banks and industrial cartels produces finance capitalism, and the exportation and investment of capital to countries with undeveloped and underdeveloped economies. In turn, that financial behaviour divides the world among monopolist business companies. In colonizing undeveloped countries, business and government will engage in geopolitical conflict over the exploitation of labour of most of the population of the world. Therefore, imperialism is the highest (advanced) stage of capitalism, requiring monopolies to exploit labour and natural resources, and the exportation of finance capital, rather than manufactured goods, to sustain colonialism, which is an integral function of imperialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperiali ... Capitalism
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
('Trade' implies no-new-value-created /
Truth To Power wrote:
No it doesn't. That's just another bald falsehood from you.
*Or*:
In economics and related disciplines, a transaction cost is a cost in making any economic trade when participating in a market.[1] Oliver E. Williamson defines transaction costs as the costs of running an economic system of companies, and unlike production costs, decision-makers determine strategies of companies by measuring transaction costs and production costs. Transaction costs are the total costs of making a transaction, including the cost of planning, deciding, changing plans, resolving disputes, and after-sales.[2] Therefore, the transaction cost is one of the most significant factors in business operation and management.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_cost
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
only-fees-and-costs / 'transaction costs',
Truth To Power wrote:
That is nothing but absurd Marxist blather contrary to fact.
(See the previous segment.)
ckaihatsu wrote:
while 'produce' implies 'new stuff made', or 'service rendered to you in person'.)
Truth To Power wrote:
No it doesn't. It just means "relieve scarcity." Which consensual trade does.
'Consensual trade' is a *misnomer* since everything's been *monetized*, and even *financialized* -- meaning that:
In economics, overproduction, oversupply, excess of supply or glut refers to excess of supply over demand of products being offered to the market. This leads to lower prices and/or unsold goods along with the possibility of unemployment.
The demand side equivalent is underconsumption; some consider supply and demand two sides to the same coin – excess supply is only relative to a given demand, and insufficient demand is only relative to a given supply – and thus consider overproduction and underconsumption equivalent.[1]
Overproduction is often attributed as due to previous overinvestment – creation of excess productive capacity, which must then either lie idle (or under capacity), which is unprofitable, or produce an excess supply.
Explanation
Overproduction is the accumulation of unsalable inventories in the hands of businesses. Overproduction is a relative measure, referring to the excess of production over consumption. The tendency for an overproduction of commodities to lead to economic collapse is specific to the capitalist economy. In previous economic formations, an abundance of production created general prosperity. However, in the capitalist economy, commodities are produced for monetary profit. This so-called profit motive, the core of the capitalist economy, creates a dynamic whereby an abundance of commodities has negative consequences. In essence, an abundance of commodities disrupts the conditions for the creation of profit.
The overproduction of commodities forces businesses to reduce production in order to clear inventories. Any reduction in production implies a reduction in employment. A reduction in employment, in turn, reduces consumption. As overproduction is the excess of production above consumption, this reduction in consumption worsens the problem. This creates a "feed-back loop" or "vicious cycle", whereby excess inventories force businesses to reduce production, thereby reducing employment, which in turn reduces the demand for the excess inventories. The general reduction in the level of prices (deflation) caused by the law of supply and demand also forces businesses to reduce production as profits decline. Reduced profits render certain fields of production unprofitable.
https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Overproduction
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
*Do* owners typically create / produce *new values*, though
Truth To Power wrote:
They indisputably do when they provide means of production -- producer goods -- that would not otherwise have been available to the producer, who may or may not own any of the means of production.
B.S. -- this is a *conflation*. You're conflating those who *may* own some means of mass production, with those who may *not* own some means of mass production. The two parties are *clearly* not the same, and they have differing *class interests*, due to non- / ownership of equity capital.
The formal / official 'producer' is the one who creates actual *commodities*, for the company, for sale -- the 'widgets' or whatever -- and is paid a *wage* so that the boss employer can expropriate the worker's surplus labor value.
labor and capital, side-by-side
Spoiler: show
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
-- I think it's more like internal paper-shuffling and the digital coin-counting of the day's take.
Truth To Power wrote:
But that just proves you don't know anything about production, have -- like most Marxists -- probably never engaged in it, and have decided never to know anything about it.
ckaihatsu wrote:
You're going off on a tangent.
Truth To Power wrote:
No I'm not. That is nothing but another bald falsehood from you. I am identifying the indisputable facts of objective physical reality that prove your absurd Marxist tripe is absurd Marxist tripe.
ckaihatsu wrote:
The question / issue here is that of *value*, which you're now having to *sidestep*.
Truth To Power wrote:
No. That is nothing but another bald falsehood from you. I have sidestepped nothing, but have striven to direct your attention to the relevant facts of objective physical reality, and identify your disingenuous denials thereof. You are the one sidestepping every proof that you are objectively wrong, as all readers are invited to confirm.
ckaihatsu wrote:
[QUESTION #001] Does the company's office *staff* do work that produces *new values* for the company -- presumably from good-management -- or are new (commodity) values *expropriated* from the surplus labor value of the employed workers?
Truth To Power wrote:
Only someone who has never engaged in productive labor could ask such a question. Staff workers do work that enables production of value by line workers.
So, Marx argues that human work is both (1) an activity which, by its useful effect, helps to create particular kinds of products, and (2) in an economic sense a value-forming activity that, if it is productively applied, can help create more value than there was before. If an employer hires labour, the employer thinks both about the value that the labour can add within his business, and about how useful the labour service will be for his business operations. That is, the right kind of work not only needs to get done, but it needs to get done in a way that it helps the employer to make money.
If the labour makes no net addition to new value produced, then the employer makes no money from it, and the labour will be only an expense to him. If the labour is only a net expense (overhead), then it is commercially speaking unproductive labour. Yet it may be very necessary to employ this unproductive labour, if, without its performance, considerable capital value would be lost from the employer's financial investments, or if business would fail without it. That is, labour may be very necessary to maintain capital value, even if it does not actually add value to capital, and does not directly add to net profit. So, the employer also buys unproductive labour because the employer's costs in this respect are lower than the loss of value that would occur, if he did not employ unproductive labour to maintain capital value, and to prevent loss of capital value. For example, cleaning work might seem a very menial and low-value activity, but if business equipment fails, customers stay away, and the staff get sick or hurt, it costs the business a lot of extra money.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_ ... ete_labour
---
ckaihatsu wrote:
Sure, capital takes a risk in its ventures,
Truth To Power wrote:
You are again just trying to evade the fact that ownership of the means of production ("capital") is not the contractual role of the producer, who arranges for all the means of production to be applied to the production process.
You just mean 'owner', and 'manager', respectively -- as distinct in class interests from that of the *workers*, over the same revenue 'pie'.
material-economic exploitation
Spoiler: show
Spoiler: show
---
Truth To Power wrote:
The Marxist axiom that ownership of the means of production confers ownership of the product is just baldly false.
It *does*, though -- how else can the product be *sold*, for *revenue*, for *profits*, if not by taking ownership of the worker-produced commodity / product / service.
ckaihatsu wrote:
and *labor* takes a risk with the everyday daily expenses and hazards involved in showing up for work.
Truth To Power wrote:
Wrong. Labor is pretty sure of getting paid for its contribution and compensated for the risks it takes by working. The producer, by contrast, has no such guarantee. He assumes the full risk of loss.
You're not listening -- there are costs involved with just *showing up to work*, meaning transportation, housing, etc., *and* the risk of being laid-off, having hours reduced, etc.
ckaihatsu wrote:
Can you give a rough *average* / estimate, maybe, of the *proportions* of natural resources, labor, and producer goods, by capital investment, respectively?
Truth To Power wrote:
It depends entirely on the product, the economic, regulatory, and market environments, the production process, etc. For a modern capitalist economy, the contributions might average out to very roughly 1/4 natural resource rents, 1/2 labor, and 1/4 producer goods. But there are many other factors involved.
Okay, thanks. I ask because you're showing *labor* costs to be a major chunk of the cost of the production process.
Could I go so far as to call those labor costs 'labor value', perhaps -- ? Note:
ckaihatsu wrote:
You *haven't* refuted the labor theory of value because you *acknowledge* that the material inputs are typically [1] natural resources, [2] labor, and [3] producer goods.
Truth To Power wrote:
Wrong. Like Jevons, I have refuted the Labor Theory of Value because I have identified the fact that value is determined by supply and demand, not production cost.