If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Well, yes, its quite clear that you haven't or read any of the links I posted. You also nicely avoid most of my points.
Everytime I go into detail and back it up with examples and links it gets ignored by you, so I've pretty much given up. Look back through my posts if you're that interested, but I don't think you really are.
Google? Not sure if you can get it, library access etc........
It clearly shows that under Thatcher, state involvement in the economy decreased, and that this trend has been reversed under New Labour.
State involvement in the economy would be one measure of 'how capitalist' it is, wouldn't you agree.
Obviously there are plenty of other factors to consider, but I think that is an important one......
I did (partially) read your links, as I normally do in fact........
I made the point that investnemtn creates value to which your poor response was to suggest that the investment capital 'was probably stolen' which was then backed up woth some reference to some old post, well done.........
No, those figures don't prove shit. New Labour has put more money into the civil service, but that hardly shows that we are "less capitalist" now. Without a breakdown of those figures, they don't mean anything.
No, I think it tells us exactly nothing. Christ Toadborg, you've told me you studied economics. Where? The back of a cereal packet?
No, what I mean is that you completely ignore half my points and demonstrate that you didn't bother reading any of the links I posted by your complete misunderstanding of them.
Christ, you're a hypocrite.
I was at work and not supposed to be posting. But demonstrate to me how investment "creates value" and I'll take you seriously. As for it being stolen - we've dealt with this all already. Do you need someone to join the fucking dots for you?
I assume your answer is that I must have misunderstood because I don't agree with you?
You can admit it can't you?
All over your fucking posts.
You assume entirely too much. No, thats not it at all. Its because I post a link and some points and you ignore them or get the wrong end of the stick.
Admit what?
I already described this and you gave a pathetic response that 'it was probably stolen', which didn't deal with the point at all did it?
Show me the errors then, show me where I have got the wrong end of the stick, you won't be able to because although I read those links I did not dorectly refer to them as they were not directly relevant to the stream of the argumebnt at the time, so you are talking bollocks......
Admit to thinking that you know it all............
No, you haven't. Look - value is created by labour. Merely putting money into an organisation doesn't create value. What it does do is to create a situation of power and control over the means of production and the labour. This control over labour does not create value. How can it? No work is done. I've already posted a link which talks about this far better than I can.
All this shows is that you don't bother reading my posts.
I've pointed out where you misunderstand things. Your constant use of the USSR in an attempt to back up your points for example.
No, I don't know it all. You appear to be projecting slightly btw.
I invest in that worker, I give him new machinery he now creates 20 units of value
Isn't that how investment works? Hasn't that investment created that extra 10 units of value to some ectent?
Constant use?
I don't think I have mentioned the USSR by name once, and have only referred to the previously communist nations a few times......
The use was valid because although I understand your point about such states not being proper communist states I would contend that these states show us what the result of communist revolution is most likely to be.
I don't even need them to be properly communist in fact as most of the debate has been about capitalism, not the laternative and the existence of those economies certainly helps to highlights some of the many benefits that capitalims brings.......
Anyway have to go
Ta-ta
See the bit in bold?
If someone helps you, do you not think they deserve something in return?
And if this guy didn't receive anything in return, then why would he help this gut, and would that be a preferable situation.
This highlights exactly the thinking that has led to the miserable economies of the communist nations.......
See that bit in bold? That, right there.
What do you mean by "properly communist"?
See that bit in bold again? Right there. I suspect that until we both understand some common terms and some common history, this discussion isn't going to get anywhere. However, this does prove my point that you don't bother reading my posts.
Chicken.
Both bollocks.
Until there is a customer, you have produced NO value. Customers create value, nothing else. In fact ,if there is no cunstomer you have produced waste.
Investment is worthless in itself, a huge pile of cash is meaningless until you use it to convince someone to do something with it. And that's all cash is, persuasion.
The actions (service/product) of that person are totally worthless until somebody else wants them to be done AND has paid for them.
Yes, this is entirely my point. Everything we do is as a result of a collective endeavour.
But what has he done, really? Nothing. He worked (I presume, it could also be the result of other investments) to get his money - that was his renumeration for his labour. Now to expect more renumeration and power merely because he has accumulated some capital, without actually doing any more work is exploitating the poor sod who does do the work.
Yes, but who have they helped? Probably not the poor sod operating the machine. Do they get a share in the extra profits created by producing twice as much? Or does their wage stay the same?
He hasn't helped the guy has he, I've just shown that.
Again, more proof that you haven't been reading my posts. Here's a hint - look up "state capitalist".
http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/
specifically http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secC1.html
and http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secC2.html
http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/secH3.html#sech313
You haven't actually been following the thread have you?
I had to go somewhere moron, some of us are not on our PCs night and day as you seem to expect!
You have shown nothing of the sort
If the guy is now producing 20 units, and keeps 15, giving 5 to the person who helped them then he is now a lot better off isn't he?
Why do you think that year on year the wages of most people increase?
They don't, though, do they?
I really don't think you've been reading a single word of what Blagsta has said. You've read what you want to read, and what you assume he said, not what was actually said.
I'll try and explain it in simple terms. I get paid £x by my boss, but he earns £x+y+z from my work. £y is what it costs him in overheads to have me in the office, and £z is enough to justify him extending his business, and to recoup his initial outlay. So far so good.
I do not get the full value of my labour, because I do not get paid £x+z. So far so good. Whether I am happy with the arrangement or not is immaterial.
The point is that this does not apply on a macro scale. The shareholder does not invest in the company, the shareholder purchases a holding in the company. To attempt to lower the argument to a scale of "he buys my machine, I should give him his money back" does not work because of this very point.
Shareholding is not about buying new machines, it is about paying the person with the means of production a fee to share in the profits from that production. One thing shareholding and investment in this sense does categorically NOT do is give workers the full value of their labour.
Wages have fallen for everyone bar the banks for the last 120 years. See - inflation.
Yup. In effect, the workers rent the factory or whatever with no prospect of ever owning the fucker. He buys the machine, keeps ownership of it and charges me rent for working for ever and ever, allowing him to sit around doing jack pack while I both provide him goods and services AND have to pay him to do it.
Yes they do.......
I am not sure how you are going to disagree with that fact, I think Blagsta did before, I can't remember why......
Average incomes generally increase every year, this is economic growth.