Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tahooper)
    Under capitalism most people live fairly comfortably. Under socialism, nobody lives comfortably due to high taxes and laws which under democratic capitalism would be considered an oppression of civil liberties. I don't know whether socialism will reduce crime rate or not so if you have any sources I'll be willing to accept them.
    http://www.globalissues.org/article/...acts-and-stats

    Most people don't live comfortably... obviously that's throughout the world but our system actually affects the whole world, not just our own country, which doesn't look too great anyway. Poverty is relative, just because someone isn't looking through trash for food doesn't mean he/she isn't in poverty. And civil liberties?? Wuh...? This isn't soviet 'communism', there'd be far more freedom since the government would have no reason to take things away from us to make profit. Also, the reduction in crime is just logical. If people aren't poor, they don't need to steal for money...

    I believe we should live in a capitalist meritocracy where people succeed based on their abilities and intellect.
    But why? There's no reason to. Intellect and ability are often things you're born with or things you learn through good education (which almost always requires being born into a well-off family). Shouldn't people be rewarded for hard work instead?
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    In essence you are arguing that supply curves are always perfectly elastic....
    It's a model; like pretty much all economic models, obviously the real world doesn't match perfectly to it.

    It does not matter how much people want things. There will always be a way to supply it at the same price?
    In the long term, yes.

    Anyway I am deducing your argument is that because the price has risen this calls more supply. This then reduces the price?
    Yes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    In the long term, yes.
    So you give no credence to the problem diminishing marginal returns. As you put more and more effort into something you get less and less in return.


    Yes.
    If more supply is called. And the price falls back to its orginal position. Then that means that supply that called because of the higher price will now go away because the new suply was only introduced in response to the increased price.

    This means that the supply will fall again and the price will rise.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dr. Bassman)
    http://www.globalissues.org/article/...acts-and-stats

    Most people don't live comfortably... obviously that's throughout the world but our system actually affects the whole world, not just our own country, which doesn't look too great anyway. Poverty is relative, just because someone isn't looking through trash for food doesn't mean he/she isn't in poverty. And civil liberties?? Wuh...? This isn't soviet 'communism', there'd be far more freedom since the government would have no reason to take things away from us to make profit. Also, the reduction in crime is just logical. If people aren't poor, they don't need to steal for money...
    The main problem in poorer countries is overpopulation. It causes infections and diseases to spread at a much faster rate and the more people there are the lower the amount of money there is to go around which causes people to resort to crime to get want they need.

    (Original post by Dr. Bassman)
    But why? There's no reason to. Intellect and ability are often things you're born with or things you learn through good education (which almost always requires being born into a well-off family). Shouldn't people be rewarded for hard work instead?
    Is working hard not an ability? I certainly wasn't born with intellect or ability, and going to a state comprehensive primary and high school means my education hasn't been that good but I still manage to get good grades in the vast majority of my lessons through hard work and determination. Everybody can do well if they actually try their best.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    So you give no credence to the problem diminishing marginal returns. As you put more and more effort into something you get less and less in return.
    Diminishing marginal returns is when only one factor of production is increased.

    If more supply is called. And the price falls back to its orginal position. Then that means that supply that called because of the higher price will now go away because the new suply was only introduced in response to the increased price.

    This means that the supply will fall again and the price will rise.
    No, because the supply ultimately rises due to the rise in demand, not the rise in prices.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Diminishing marginal returns is when only one factor of production is increased.
    What about diseconomies of scale. The same concept but when all the factors are varied.

    No, because the supply ultimately rises due to the rise in demand, not the rise in prices.
    No. Increased supply is called in because the price has risen. This is because it is now profitable for new firms to enter the market or for the current firms to increase output. The price is the signal. The increase in price guides the firms. Not some notion of 'demand' which is completely untangible.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    What about diseconomies of scale. The same concept but when all the factors are varied.
    This would be a change in the production process, rather than merely expanding what is already happening.


    No. Increased supply is called in because the price has risen. This is because it is now profitable for new firms to enter the market or for the current firms to increase output. The price is the signal. The increase in price guides the firms. Not some notion of 'demand' which is completely untangible.
    And it will come to a point where it is no longer profitable for new firms to enter the market, but remains profitable for firms already in it, which is when the price drops to what it had been before the rise in demand. If that price was not profitable, it wouldn't have been sold at that price in the first place.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    This would be a change in the production process, rather than merely expanding what is already happening.
    So you are arguing that the process of production would change to compensate for increasing input costs.

    This ofcourse begs the question. If this is true, then why did the firms not just use this more efficient method in the first place?


    The problem here is that suppose a certain industry gets bigger. It starts to use more input resources. This means that these resources have to be taken away from another industry. How do you get the resources from one industry to another in the market?

    You have to pay more than the other industry is willing to pay.

    Suppose before industry A paid £10 per unit. And industry B paid £10 per unit. For industry A to get the resources of industry B (to meet an increase in demand, signalled by an increase in price) it has to pay more than £10 per unit.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    That's not a source of value, but a proposal of how to evaluate and measure value (and one that doesn't contradict the LTV). What produces the value?
    It's not a proposal of how to evaluate it, it's a refutation of the idea that there is an objective value to economic goods. Why are you obsessed with the idea that something objective needs to produce value, and why labour power in particular?

    Labour is what it sounds like - the work a worker does in the production process. Exploitation is that workers are necessarily not paid the full return on what they produce in capitalism - i.e. surplus value.
    Did you even read the Hermann-Hoppe paper? It explicitly refutes this idea by referring to the concept of time-preference. Exploitation only makes sense given the LTV, and the LTV does not hold to much scrutiny. What you've done here is argue from definition. I say that LTV is false so exploitation makes no sense, and you say "nah, exploitation means [insert arbitrary definition]." Do you not see what's wrong with this argument?

    And this doesn't make it not exploitation. Rather, it confirms it. Capitalists generally (not all the time, of course) have the money to have a longer 'time-preference', workers do not. As for 'risk', does the worker not take a risk? Taking job A means not taking job B, and job B might turn out better in the long run. The worker's conditions are tied to the fortunes of the business.
    Being a capitalist does not require having money, it requires being willing to take on risks. I was not saying that workers don't take on risks, just not as big. Labourers in a capitalist economy are free to set up their own firms by combining their wealth, but they don't, which is about as good an argument for the concept of the capitalist as I can see.

    True, but have we exhausted this finite amount? No, so how can we talk about absolute scarcity as the root cause? There is a scarcity, yes, but because it requires so much effort to mine the diamonds.
    You can go on about this mythical pot of diamonds that we have not yet laboured for as much as you like, but you can't simply define it into existence.

    Subjectivity does not determine the value, but whether an individual will pay it or not. Subjectivity determines whether something has a use-value for an individual. If it doesn't, or if the potential utility is judged to be worth less than the cost, the individual won't buy it, therefore no exchange occurs and the product has no exchange value (not yet, at least).
    The subjective theory of value is a denial of the idea of intrinsic value. It doesn't propose a way to objectively evaluate value because it destroys the concept of objective value. You can't ask the theory to prop up something that the very definition of the theory says doesn't exist. With the possibility of trade, goods are valued not only by their direct use-value but also their exchange-value. An actor will always value a unit of a good at the higher of these two. For example, even a non-smoker would prefer a box of fine cigars over a burger, if he thought he could trade the cigars to a smoker.

    What's arbitrary about it? It's based on the common sense analysis that people will not buy things if they could produce them themselves at what they would judge to be a lower cost, and so products' exchange value and price will tend towards the cost (not just monetary cost) of their production. And all production, ultimately, is done by labour.
    The LTV states that all value that arises for things is somehow created by the labour involved in creating these things. It cannot explain a plethora of phenomena that occur within the economy and I'm sure I could dream up a few examples to show why. It's arbitrary because it isolates other factors in production, such as know-how and high-order capital goods. A small amount of labour goes into producing a screwdriver, yet is it not the case that this screwdriver can perform a multitude of services to different people? Furthermore, can you defend the idea that the same screwdriver is of the same objective value to the mechanic as it is to the office worker? Goods, they are ranked, subjectively by the actor and have diminishing marginal utility. For example lets take 10 ounces of butter and say only 1 ounce of butter is required to satisfy my immediate desire. My most highly ranked end is satisfied. The other 9 ounces of butter have less value because they are only needed to satisfy less highly ranked ends. The ten ounces of butter do not have a value that is equal to the social necessary labour time since the first ounce of butter (assuming we are considering all ten ounces of butter as part of the same unit and not with different qualities) is ranked higher than the second ounce of butter, which is ranked higher than the third and so forth.

    Furthermore, there are some things I'd like to clear up. 1) How do you explain trade? If goods had an objective, intrinsic value, then there could be no reverse valuation (except through error). If this were the case, then traded goods would be equal in value (and hence there would be no reason to trade them), or one party would necessarily benefit at the expense of the other. 2) How do you explain products that no one has laboured over yet that people would be willing to pay a great deal of money for (the mountain view that Classical Liberal mentioned earlier)?
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    So you are arguing that the process of production would change to compensate for increasing input costs.
    No, that's not at all what I'm arguing. Quite the opposite in fact. I'm saying they wouldn't change the process.


    Suppose before industry A paid £10 per unit. And industry B paid £10 per unit. For industry A to get the resources of industry B (to meet an increase in demand, signalled by an increase in price) it has to pay more than £10 per unit.
    In the short term, yes. In the long term, the supply of said resources will adjust to the rise in demand.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    In the short term, yes. In the long term, the supply of said resources will adjust to the rise in demand.
    How? There are limited resources. That is the basic principle of economics. Scarcity.

    Men can only work so many days in a year. There is only so much energy we can produce at any given time.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    It's not a proposal of how to evaluate it, it's a refutation of the idea that there is an objective value to economic goods.
    Use-value or exchange value? Use value is of course subjective. Exchange value, on the other hand, is in practice regulated by the market. It's reasonably close to objective.

    Why are you obsessed with the idea that something objective needs to produce value, and why labour power in particular?
    If you start from a 'default' position where there is only natural resources, there is no trouble with getting the natural resources, they're free, they have no market value - there isn't a market for them. Things can only have a market value if they have been modified from their default form. This can only be done by labour.

    Did you even read the Hermann-Hoppe paper? It explicitly refutes this idea by referring to the concept of time-preference. Exploitation only makes sense given the LTV, and the LTV does not hold to much scrutiny. What you've done here is argue from definition. I say that LTV is false so exploitation makes no sense, and you say "nah, exploitation means [insert arbitrary definition]." Do you not see what's wrong with this argument?
    So far you are yet to provide an alternative to where value comes from other than being created by labour.

    Being a capitalist does not require having money
    It requires capital, by definition.

    I was not saying that workers don't take on risks, just not as big.
    Whether they do or not is entirely down to individual situations. Often the risk to workers is considerably more.

    Labourers in a capitalist economy are free to set up their own firms by combining their wealth, but they don't, which is about as good an argument for the concept of the capitalist as I can see.
    Because they don't have capital. That's part of the problem.

    You can go on about this mythical pot of diamonds that we have not yet laboured for as much as you like, but you can't simply define it into existence.
    They objectively exist. Are there more diamonds yet to be mined?

    The subjective theory of value is a denial of the idea of intrinsic value. It doesn't propose a way to objectively evaluate value because it destroys the concept of objective value. You can't ask the theory to prop up something that the very definition of the theory says doesn't exist.
    If you want to buy something, you must pay the price/exchange value. For the buyer, that is objective. They can subjectively decide to buy it or not, but not what the value is. The market exchange value, what prices tend towards, is not different for different people.

    It's arbitrary because it isolates other factors in production, such as know-how
    Mental labour is labour too.

    and high-order capital goods.
    Which are produced by labour.

    Furthermore, can you defend the idea that the same screwdriver is of the same objective value to the mechanic as it is to the office worker?
    The use value isn't. The exchange value is the same.

    Goods, they are ranked, subjectively by the actor and have diminishing marginal utility. For example lets take 10 ounces of butter and say only 1 ounce of butter is required to satisfy my immediate desire. My most highly ranked end is satisfied. The other 9 ounces of butter have less value because they are only needed to satisfy less highly ranked ends. The ten ounces of butter do not have a value that is equal to the social necessary labour time since the first ounce of butter (assuming we are considering all ten ounces of butter as part of the same unit and not with different qualities) is ranked higher than the second ounce of butter, which is ranked higher than the third and so forth.
    And these are not being exchanged, so the LTV is not concerned with them.

    Furthermore, there are some things I'd like to clear up. 1) How do you explain trade? If goods had an objective, intrinsic value, then there could be no reverse valuation (except through error). If this were the case, then traded goods would be equal in value (and hence there would be no reason to trade them), or one party would necessarily benefit at the expense of the other.
    You're conflating use and exchange values again. Traded goods will by definition have equal exchange values on the market as a whole (or rather, they will tend towards such).

    2) How do you explain products that no one has laboured over yet that people would be willing to pay a great deal of money for (the mountain view that Classical Liberal mentioned earlier)?
    On what basis do they have to pay for the mountain view? If it's already there, then the only basis on which they can't already see it is by force.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    How? There are limited resources. That is the basic principle of economics. Scarcity.
    Scarcity of a good is determined by the amount of labour necessary to produce it. As I mentioned, there's unmined gold/diamonds/etc in the earth

    Men can only work so many days in a year. There is only so much energy we can produce at any given time.
    True, but there isn't a scarcity of labour as there is unemployment. A shortage of a particular skill is one that can be resolved.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Scarcity of a good is determined by the amount of labour necessary to produce it. As I mentioned, there's unmined gold/diamonds/etc in the earth
    It is true labour is scarce and it is a factor of production.

    However you have not refuted my point. If demand goes up then you need to use more labour to keep the price the same. That means you have to get labour from elsewhere. How are going to get this extra labour?
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    It is true labour is scarce and it is a factor of production.

    However you have not refuted my point. If demand goes up then you need to use more labour to keep the price the same. That means you have to get labour from elsewhere. How are going to get this extra labour?
    The unemployed. Remember that an increase in demand for A means a decrease in demand for B, and subsequently less labour involved in producing B.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Wow, definitely not a fallacy debunked 15 million times......

    Anarchism:

    How so?

    Are you saying that the South Korean economy is not stronger than the North Korean economy? Have you seen the pictures from outer space of the two Koreas at night? North Korea is totally dark. South Korea is lit up like a firecracker.

    Are you saying that West Germany did not have a stronger economy than East Germany?

    Are you saying that Taiwan did not have a better economy than pre-reform China?

    Are you saying that the Cubans of Havana have a stronger economy than the Cubans of Miami?

    And for that matter, are you saying that post reform India today does not have a stronger economy than it did during its socialist days?

    And did not pre-socialist Ukraine produce a lot more food when compared to socialist Ukraine?

    It seems pretty clear to be that capitalism, despite its faults, has won this "election", and by a landslide. This does not mean capitalism does not need some reforms as well, of course. But let us not throw out the baby with the bath water.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    The unemployed. Remember that an increase in demand for A means a decrease in demand for B, and subsequently less labour involved in producing B.
    Firstly, what if there are no unemployed.

    Secondly, the embolden part does not follow.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by normalothercitrusfruit)
    Libertarian, so most definitley right-wing capitalist :yep:


    The first use of the word "libertarian" was in 1858 by the French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque.
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by normalothercitrusfruit)
    Libertarian, so most definitley right-wing capitalist :yep:
    ^
    |
    |

    Libertarian is synonymous for left-wing anarchists in most of the world.

    Please read a book.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mysteries)
    ^
    |
    |

    Libertarian is synonymous for left-wing anarchists in most of the world.

    Please read a book.
    No... Just... Stop


    A libertarian is usually associated with the classical liberalist ideology, economically conservative and socially liberal.


    You are no better than the occupy protestor i had a chat to who claimed Adam smith was a socialist. :rofl:
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.