Replies
Twetch ·
From this fallacy, a vast majority of the socialist mindset is derived.
What is "fair"? This fallacy gives them their answer. From there, almost all else is derived.
It's not "fair" that someone has more than me?
Twetch ·
The initial reaction for many, correctly but not completely, is "value is subjective, therefore there is no such thing as a price that is "100% of the value"."
However, their real fallacy is in thinking *their* valuations are objective.
Twetch ·
It is only more mature than the five year old screaming "it's not faaaaiiir" in that it is a more advanced stage of that sickness.
While justifiable in a child, the biological adult has no reasonable excuse for such shamefully juvenile thinking.
Twetch ·
The Socialist hides rampant selfishness and ignorance with virtue signalling and blaming others for all problems real and imagined.
This is not to suggest that the Capitalist is necessarily a better person, but at least they don't hide their true nature.
Twetch ·
Whatever the value of the work is, it's of course a fair exchange to give exactly that much value. That you have difficulty accepting the simple logic of that is telling.
Twetch ·
I simply mean 100% of the value it has to the person buying it, as things usually work in fair markets.
Twetch ·
What is telling is that you clearly do not understand these issues. You argue from feelings, not from real knowledge.
In exchange, "buyer" and "seller" are short hand, not all that meaningful terms. It's short hand for who is exchanging money vs goods.
Twetch ·
No. You don't understand "value" enough to see how ridiculously wrong that is.
If I sell my labor, I am buying dollars.
Prices are exchange rates. They don't actually care who is a "buyer" or a "seller". That distinction is meaningless.
Twetch ·
Of course there's both a buyer and a seller. What's your point. I'm simply saying that all of the buyers money should go to the seller, and none to someone else who's simply interjecting themselves and demanding some of the seller's money they just earned.
Twetch ·
The person with dollars is buying an amount of labor that they agree to a price for-- that's fine! The problem is the person with labor is buying SOME OF those dollars, and also buying the chance to get to sell the labor from an otherwise uninvolved leech.
Twetch ·
You don't even understand what I'm telling you about buyers and sellers...
Also, if that's what you're arguing, then I don't see any issues.
Employees are selling labor, which employers are buying. Employers sell products/services, which customers buy.
Twetch ·
Though there is still the problem that "100% of the value" is a nonsensical statement...
Twetch ·
You are manufacturing a story of how firms work as opposed to looking at how they actually work.
Twetch ·
That's just a statement that I'm wrong, not an argument that I'm wrong. Actually, it turns out that it's you that's wrong! That's my equivalent rebuttal. ;)
Twetch ·
I understood you, it's just not at all relevant. You seem like you're hearing me say there shouldn't be employees and employers??? I'm simply saying that employers should engage in fair contract negotiations and pay employees all of the value they produce.
Twetch ·
If you pay $5 for something, and I did 100% of the work to produce the thing and sell it to you, how much of the $5 should I get?
Twetch ·
Why is this a matter of socialism? BitCoin is actually capitalism in it's purest form. And what is the purest form of capitalism? .... Anybody?
Twetch ·
This is confusing. You probably mean "free markets." Capitalism is a form of social organization where a small subset of the people own the entire means of production, & thus can rule society by intentionally excluding everyone else from access to capital.
Twetch ·
No, you did not understand me. The evidence of that is on chain for all to see. If you keep not listening, I'll end this conversation. I'm not here for low value drivel.
Define "the value they produce" without relying on an objective theory of value.
Twetch ·
I don't see how your response applies at all to the post.
Twetch ·
So you built the business, own the capital, organized the entire operation, and did literally *all* the work involved?
In that case, there's nobody/nothing else to get involved, except perhaps for government sales tax. But that's a different conversation.
Twetch ·
I'm not saying that there's any way to objectively measure the value. I'm simply saying that once the value has been measured, by a market, the person or people who produced the value should get the entire exchange price. That's difficult to disagree with.
Twetch ·
So then you agree that 100% of the value should go to whoever worked to produce it. It's not actually a complicated idea and there's no reason it should be controversial. You don't have to disagree. The creator of the value should get the value-- why not?!
Twetch ·
You are wrong. A very basic study of how firms actually work demonstrates that. I'm not here to teach you basic econ, though. You're clearly not interested in learning the lessons in the first place, as you still think value is objective.
Twetch ·
When you define words according to your own ideological biases rather than by what they actually mean, you're gonna have a bad time.
Twetch ·
I didn't ask for any lessons from you. I didn't ask for you to argue with the obviously true thing I said either, you could just agree. ;) If you try to rebut my obviously true statement with weak arguments, I'll show their weakness. Or just say I'm wrong.
Twetch ·
It's just my reaction to seeing a debate where socialists are mentioned honestly. Stream of thought...did not mean to interrupt
Twetch ·
Ah, so you're woefully misusing very standard terms in economics because you're trying to make a point that's completely irrelevant when applied to the entirety of the thing you're criticizing.
Gotcha.
Tell me, is the price for labor not set by a market?
Twetch ·
You're engaging in a bait and switch.
On one hand, "the value is set by the market!" = "the price is the value"
On the other, you want to change the rules when it's labor that's involved, because the value of the labor suddenly isn't set on the market.
Twetch ·
definitions of words have changed with time. As I said, I did not mean to interrupt and I understand what you are saying completely. I'll choose my words much more carefully next time. I honestly don't want anything taken out of context.
Twetch ·
No interruption. I'm trying to understand what you were saying and how it applies. It seems to be a response to something wholly different, made tangential only by the mention of socialism. Am I misunderstanding?
Twetch ·
The word "capitalism" was virtually unknown in English until translations appeared in English of Marx. That's the origin of the term and its ordinary meaning. Y'all use it to mean just like, "being allowed to trade stuff," which hardly anyone's opposed to.
Twetch ·
"The obviously true thing"
See, that's arrogance, and it is blinding you. You are so attached to your conclusions that you argue from conclusions rather than from premises.
It suffices for me to tease out such 'obvious fallacies' as you are using.
Twetch ·
We're talking about labor prices set by markets. We're both in favor of free markets. There are of course other ways to price labor.
Twetch ·
no. it's very tangential. it was a word that caused a reaction on my part. The entire context was somewhat ignored by me although I read the thread. To me, a lot of beliefs need to be left at the door when talking about how this economic system works
Twetch ·
I'm not arguing there. I can't be expected to argue against the "argument" you've presented consisting entirely of saying "You are wrong." If you bother to present an argument, then I can argue.
Twetch ·
I'm proposing that the value of the labor be set by the market, and then claimed entirely by the laborer. I'm proposing that it's obvious that if the laborer gets less than the price agreed for the labor, someone has stolen some of that money they're owed.
Twetch ·
From the South (Y'all) I am from New Orleans. And you are right. Things get lost in translation...and terms are used too loosely sometimes. Being allowed to trade stuff is necessary. It what we trade and how we trade it that's important.
Twetch ·
No.
You just defined the term to mean a straw man, and you know it, which is why you tried to "correct" someone who didn't use the term as you want it to be used.
*Listen* to the people who are talking around you.
Twetch ·
And who is in the middle of transactions is extremely important...between buyer and seller. Someone is selling the service of "performing" the transaction which can't be eliminated when there is electronic transfer. Maybe in face to face bartering
Twetch ·
This has gone on long enough.
You are doing nothing but redefining things as the going gets tough for your position.
It's not logic, it's not reason - it's the proverbial pigeon on the chess board.
It's time for you to grow up.
Twetch ·
Unfortunately this isn't a benign innocent confusion about the meaning of words! A false meaning of "capitalism" is being spread, to intentionally create the impression that socialists are arguing against something reasonable!! Capitalism is obviously bad.
Twetch ·
Gotcha. I think I see where you're going now. It was hard for me to see that until you made it more clear.
I think socialism will always try to creep into everything. At its core, it's a rejection of personal responsibility and laziness. A human issue.
Twetch ·
If you think that definition of capitalism is a "straw man," are you saying that definition isn't actually something you support? Is it something you oppose? Will you join socialists in opposing "capitalism" by that ordinary original Marxist definition? <3
Twetch ·
Then you're not talking about Socialism/Socialists anymore.
Either that, or you're using such distorted language as to make any 'agreement' meaningless.
Hence why this conversation is done.
Twetch ·
You claim equivocation is being done, that it's bad, and then you deliberately equivocate when you full well know what the other person is meaning.
You are a hypocrite at best.
Twetch ·
and my intention was not to promote something negative or bad. That is why I said I would choose my words more carefully. I'm here to learn. And hopefully to help others learn. I appreciate your feedback and now know not say things I do not understand.
Twetch ·
This is a complicated issue, yes.
Tell me, what service is VISA performing?
They are, in fact, selling a good.
Notice, the moment you dive into this question, the entire basis of Mungo's position starts falling apart...
Twetch ·
I think it's confusing to you that you agree with socialism. Socialism is all about the value of work. "WORKERS of the world, UNITE!" Socialism just says that workers should get all of the proceeds of their work. You agree with that and it confuses you. <3
Twetch ·
The problem isn't really your definition of "capitalism," the problem is when you talk as if socialists were opposed to "capitalism" by your definition. If "capitalism" simply means being allowed to trade, it's very popular. Stop saying I don't support it.