Mr. Ambien Posted July 19, 2015 Share Posted July 19, 2015 You are confusing the issue. Labour is not an intangible asset in the sense that it is nothing until it has been applied, or consumed, by the employer. Up until that point it has produced no value. That is not to say it does not have a price - but that price is based off future expectations. Up until machinery has turned on, it has produced no value either. There's no difference. When it comes to the value of a product from the business' perspective, it's not labour that's the deciding factor. It's clearly the entire cost of making a product. You would be right if you said that labour "affects" the value of a product like any other aspect of a business does, but "labour theory" elevates the importance of labour to the point where it's now dictating prices, when it isn't in the real world. When labour becomes too costly, it's scaled back to fit the business' model for what they believe the price should be (along with their needs and wants), or other investments are made to replace labour. That's called capitalism. Labour-centric philosophies don't work, hence why, comrade, they're not around anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Up until machinery has turned on, it has produced no value either. There's no difference. When it comes to the value of a product from the business' perspective, it's not labour that's the deciding factor. It's clearly the entire cost of making a product. You would be right if you said that labour "affects" the value of a product like any other aspect of a business does, but "labour theory" elevates the importance of labour to the point where it's now dictating prices, when it isn't in the real world. When labour becomes too costly, it's scaled back to fit the business' model for what they believe the price should be (along with their needs and wants), or other investments are made to replace labour. That's called capitalism. Labour-centric philosophies don't work, hence why, comrade, they're not around anymore. Just can't help yourself, can you? Always need to throw in the jabs. Meh. Labour doesn't dictate the price of a product - labour dictates its value. let me write that again - labour is the source of a good's value. When a good becomes too costly, that is the market speaks, it's because the deviation between the good's price and value is wrong. The amount of social labour specific to produce that good is too great when compared to all useful labour in its totality; all of society's labour. The price of a good serves as a signal. Prices of all goods serve as signals that proportion out labour as needed for all of society. You fixate on the price. This isn't wrong, what's wrong is that you're only looking at half the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realtor Rod Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 I am not for or against it but does legalizing marijauna and taxing it here in bc do for us what it has done for Colorado? The numbers are massive and I don't know if you have ever been to Denver but it can't hold a candle to Vancouver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 I am not for or against it but does legalizing marijauna and taxing it here in bc do for us what it has done for Colorado? The numbers are massive and I don't know if you have ever been to Denver but it can't hold a candle to Vancouver. I'm for legalizing marijuana but I recall Christy Clark saying that was a federal deal, not up to the province's. Justin Trudeau claims the Liberals will legalize marijuana however the liberals also said they would eliminate the gst for 10 years and they never did. As for the taxing of it I believe would go to the Federal government so I'm not sure if province's would get a kick back or the money would stay with Ottawa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 I'm for legalizing marijuana but I recall Christy Clark saying that was a federal deal, not up to the province's. Justin Trudeau claims the Liberals will legalize marijuana however the liberals also said they would eliminate the gst for 10 years and they never did. As for the taxing of it I believe would go to the Federal government so I'm not sure if province's would get a kick back or the money would stay with Ottawa. Taxation would be the same as alcohol or tobacco. Both the federal and provincial governments would tax. In Canada only the federal government can change the criminal code though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Taxation would be the same as alcohol or tobacco. Both the federal and provincial governments would tax. In Canada only the federal government can change the criminal code though. Thanks for the clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Just can't help yourself, can you? Always need to throw in the jabs. Meh. Labour doesn't dictate the price of a product - labour dictates its value. let me write that again - labour is the source of a good's value. When a good becomes too costly, that is the market speaks, it's because the deviation between the good's price and value is wrong. The amount of social labour specific to produce that good is too great when compared to all useful labour in its totality; all of society's labour. The price of a good serves as a signal. Prices of all goods serve as signals that proportion out labour as needed for all of society. You fixate on the price. This isn't wrong, what's wrong is that you're only looking at half the story. No it doesn't. Goods are based on want not only need.. so this idea that labour is something society dictates the value of rather than the company who's asset the labour belongs to and the price the customer is willing to pay is flat out fantasy. The notion that society does or should dictate individual wants and needs comes from a communistic (ie non capital based) school of thought. But we knew that all along, comrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 No it doesn't. Goods are based on want not only need.. so this idea that labour is something society dictates the value of rather than the company who's asset the labour belongs to and the price the customer is willing to pay is flat out fantasy. The notion that society does or should dictate individual wants and needs comes from a communistic (ie non capital based) school of thought. But we knew that all along, comrade. Good's are based on want and need. Never disputed that point. This does not negate the notion that society dictates what is deemed necessary. You're splitting hairs. Individual wants and needs, on aggregate, suggest whether a product is viable. They suggest whether the energy, machinery, commercial space etc used to make the product is deemed worth while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Good's are based on want and need. Never disputed that point. This does not negate the notion that society dictates what is deemed necessary. You're splitting hairs. Individual wants and needs, on aggregate, suggest whether a product is viable. They suggest whether the energy, machinery, commercial space etc used to make the product is deemed worth while. Society doesn't dictate anything... buyers and sellers do. Viability is also between those two parties. There's nothing therein what you posted that shows labour gives any value.. it is merely an asset. Just like any other asset its value is in what the seller.. and buyer determine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Society doesn't dictate anything... buyers and sellers do. Viability is also between those two parties. There's nothing therein what you posted that shows labour gives any value.. it is merely an asset. Just like any other asset its value is in what the seller.. and buyer determine. Let me try and phrase this another way. Let's suppose in the future there are automated machines that gather/create raw materials, and there are automated machines that refine these materials, automated machinery to construct new commodities, and automation further to add more value until we have whatever finished product that fills a need or want in society. Not a single drop of human labour is used in producing this good. Now let us suppose that is how all our commodities are made. In this scenario, who is buying them? In other words, where is the value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Let me try and phrase this another way. Let's suppose in the future there are automated machines that gather/create raw materials, and there are automated machines that refine these materials, automated machinery to construct new commodities, and automation further to add more value until we have whatever finished product that fills a need or want in society. Not a single drop of human labour is used in producing this good. Now let us suppose that is how all our commodities are made. In this scenario, who is buying them? In other words, where is the value? How is it that copyrights, patents, speculative assets, and other intangibles have value? Where's the labour giving it value? Labour theory gets shot to hell every time, because it has nothing to do with capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 How is it that copyrights, patents, speculative assets, and other intangibles have value? Where's the labour giving it value? Labour theory gets shot to hell every time, because it has nothing to do with capitalism. It's certainly not without its critisisms, but rest assured you have touched on none of them. You completely ignore my example, skirt past it, and say "but look! What about patents!?" To which I respond, what about them? IP can have value, why couldn't it? Your misrepresentation, or misunderstanding of value theory is not cause for its dismissal. On another note: Every single mode of production known to humanity has relied on labour as its central component. That is, of course, until now according to some hocus pocus. Never mind that. Saying that labour theories have nothing to do with capitalism is a stretch considering one of its theoretic "fathers", Adam Smith, used it (albeit in a very flawed manner). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 It's certainly not without its critisisms, but rest assured you have touched on none of them. You completely ignore my example, skirt past it, and say "but look! What about patents!?" To which I respond, what about them? IP can have value, why couldn't it? Your misrepresentation, or misunderstanding of value theory is not cause for its dismissal. On another note: Every single mode of production known to humanity has relied on labour as its central component. That is, of course, until now according to some hocus pocus. Never mind that. Saying that labour theories have nothing to do with capitalism is a stretch considering one of its theoretic "fathers", Adam Smith, used it (albeit in a very flawed manner). As you increasingly post, the Marxism here becomes more and more prevalent. - Exaggerates role and value of labour - Acknowledges that the market (i.e. buyers and sellers) sets the prices, and thus value of goods, not workers - Turns around and suggests labour is what gives things value anyways despite increasingly plentiful examples contradicting this, side-stepping it by saying "there are criticisms" Well no, it's not merely a criticism, it's a system that doesn't work, for obvious reasons. Hence why no reasonable capitalist since well before I was born has followed Marx's labour theory. There is no standard economic system, nor accounting system, in practice in any capitalist society that backs up your claim. It's like you read Marx's works like Capital/Das Kapital and formed your economic opinion (in many cases your posts are a paraphrasing of what one would read from there), which is funny, but worthy of being mocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 While a lot of what Schiff talks about is pertaining to the US, this affects Canada too, since we have a central bank which, like many other countries, seems to think inflation is wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 As you increasingly post, the Marxism here becomes more and more prevalent. - Exaggerates role and value of labour - Acknowledges that the market (i.e. buyers and sellers) sets the prices, and thus value of goods, not workers - Turns around and suggests labour is what gives things value anyways despite increasingly plentiful examples contradicting this, side-stepping it by saying "there are criticisms" Well no, it's not merely a criticism, it's a system that doesn't work, for obvious reasons. Hence why no reasonable capitalist since well before I was born has followed Marx's labour theory. There is no standard economic system, nor accounting system, in practice in any capitalist society that backs up your claim. It's like you read Marx's works like Capital/Das Kapital and formed your economic opinion (in many cases your posts are a paraphrasing of what one would read from there), which is funny, but worthy of being mocked. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realtor Rod Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 I'm for legalizing marijuana but I recall Christy Clark saying that was a federal deal, not up to the province's. Justin Trudeau claims the Liberals will legalize marijuana however the liberals also said they would eliminate the gst for 10 years and they never did. As for the taxing of it I believe would go to the Federal government so I'm not sure if province's would get a kick back or the money would stay with Ottawa. iIt would sure eliminate the issue we are having with grow ops, legal and illegal, and the affect it has on house prices. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to buy a home that was an ex grow op, even when remediated. Make it legal and get rid of the majority of home grow ops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanGnome Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Canada needs to invest more in the Technology sector, and sciences, research & development. Continuing to pilfer natural resources is not only idiotic, it's completely unsustainable. Canada is basically the idiot who lives on welfare or a very minimally paying job, while consistently pawning it's possessions in order to buy that next case of beer to get through until the next pay cheque. In the end, Canada will be left with nothing to show for it's years of essentially giving away our natural resources, land and real estate to people who do not and will not ever take an interest in strengthening the country or the economy, but are completely content with exploiting until there's nothing left to exploit. As far as manufacturing is concerned, Canada could very easily become a rival to the US Boeing or Lockheed Martin if they were to resurrect the Avro Arrow project; this would significantly boost Canada's manufacturing, aviation and technology sectors in one fell swoop through the trickle down effect. There are many, many, many great technology startups especially in Vancouver which with some nurturing from the Government could really help boost the technology sector as well. There are many talented researchers and scientists performing amazing research that could move Canada to the top of the list in innovation, but sadly all of these sectors are being ignored in favor of tugging on the unwashed member of China for the privilege of opening our borders to massive foreign investment and land ownership without the same rights being provided to Canadian citizens beyond China's borders. I'm not on the ship with "Anything but Harper", but I don't want Harper either. He has systematically and fallaciously claimed he "steered Canada through the recession" but at the cost of massively overestimating China's growth forecasts which has as a consequence left Canada in a very precarious position; don't even get me started on the erosion of our personal rights and freedoms. China itself even proclaimed some 7 years ago or so that their trajectory was unsustainable and needed to change, and you're starting to see the beginning of that destabilization in their recent and current stock exchange crash ($3.2 Trillion in total wealth lost). Canada needs to recover in so many sectors that it's not even funny, it's downright scary. Factor in that a lot of Canadian foreign investment portfolios (ie Bonds) rely heavily on foreign economies such as the European Union. If this Greece debacle blows up (it's a ticking time bomb), and the EU becomes economically destabilized because of it, it's going to impact Canada and everyone who has a large and relatively non-diversified portfolio relying on mutual funds and bonds. Bottom line is, Canada needs to rely on Canada before relying on other countries around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electro Rock Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 ^^^ You had me until you mentioned the Arrow, Canada couldn't pull it off in cost acceptable manner back when it had far more scientific and economic clout, and still had experienced design teams, not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanGnome Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 ^^^ You had me until you mentioned the Arrow, Canada couldn't pull it off in cost acceptable manner back when it had far more scientific and economic clout, and still had experienced design teams, not going to happen. There are varying opinions on the matter, but it seemed that Canada had not only the manufacturing and economic means to actually pursue the Arrow, but some suggest there was outside influence on Diefenbaker to scrap the project. What I was referring to was during the F18 replacement debacle when the F35 was ultimately settled upon, a group of engineers had some how managed to preserve original engineering plans related to the Avro project. It was proposed to resurrect the project at that time and divert the spending allocated to the F35's to the project (again the costs would have increased, but would have additional net benefit for Canada) but the Government didn't give it any credence. As for the logistics of the matter, I'm sure that between the 120 some odd corporate members of AIAC (Aerospace Industries Association of Canada), certainly a handful could pool together resources to form a manufacturing and research and development company in the private sector, and have that 45 billion dollars awarded in grants and contracts to develop a fleet of Avro's (which mechanically speaking is still superior even based on original specifications) but have it outfitted with modern avionics. I mean, the Avro was designed specifically for what the F18 has been used for, long range interception, and reconnaissance in remote regions. The F35 does not have the long range capability, nor the ability to perform reconnaissance without avoiding detection; that is unless the F35's true purpose is not for the defense of the nation, but instead to be deployed in conflicts outside of our borders, or for more domestic missions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electro Rock Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 The Arrow had a projected cost that was 5 or 6 times that of the the F-4 Phantom, which was already considered expensive, and further costs were likely. You can't build a 60 year old design today without basically redesigning it first, the manufacturing methods are completely different, by the time you're finished reverse engineering it you might as well start from scratch. You can't just jump up and produce a competitive product of this complexity without institutional experience, it would be like a startup Canadian car company competing with the big boys like Toyota. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.