Head over to this thread to submit a song for our February 'Love' playlist that we'll be putting on Spotify!

Renting costs are about to rocket

135

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ok, I'm with you. *takes a back seat now the positions have been clarified*. Continue the show... Popcorn!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Katralla,

    Want to accept some euros to buy your popcorn ? ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    So first it's rubbish and then it's something you'd already said?

    Do fuck off.

    Eh? :confused:
    klintock wrote:
    No, you are describing how capitalism is thought of by you right now. You are focusing on one area - that is state run capitalism.

    I'm describing how capitalism works now, rather than (as you are) focussing on how I'd like it to be.
    klintock wrote:
    What surplus value? There isn't any. If there is no mutual benefit, trade simply doesn't occur. Now you can say that the state creates a climate of fear which puts pressure on people to accept a lower benefit than they normally would and I can agree with that, but the simple fact is that there isn't any surplus value.

    So people never sell things for a profit? Errr...I think reality would beg to differ.
    klintock wrote:
    Everybody makes a profit, don't forget.

    You seem to redefine words to suit your arguments. This is why its an almost impossible task to debate with you, you change defintions and goalposts all the time.
    klintock wrote:
    See, utter ignorance of economics. What is normally thought of as money isn't a symbol, it's the most commonly traded item in an economy. The market always chooses gold (sometimes silver) and the state forces most people to use it's paper.

    LOL! :D Oh dear klintock. Of course money is a symbol. Its something that stands for something else. £2.50 = a pint of lager = a tube journey. See? As for this - "The market always chooses gold". Talk about reification! "the market" isn't a thing, its a social relation.
    klintock wrote:
    That paper only gains any value because it can be used to keep the state from attacking you, that is you can give it the violent men and women in the tax office and they will leave you alone for a bit.

    This is gibberish.

    klintock wrote:
    Great, except that labour is in itself a form of money.

    Labour is a commodity, yes. I already stated that.
    klintock wrote:
    You can pick any good or service in the market and measure all other goods and services as units of that good or service. You have chosen labour as your ultimate good, not because of any rational basis but because of some emotional investment in the idea of "the workers".

    No. Labour is the final measure because for something to have use, it has to be worked on and people have to be paid for that work. Its not that hard get your head round.
    klintock wrote:
    You could have picked pickles, or car repair, lead or dentistry.

    Only if you're insane.
    klintock wrote:
    My car is worth 43 trips to the dentist or a ton of pickles or half the lead off my roof or having my car itself fixed half a dozen times. See, you can measure anything in terms of anything else, none of them are better than others, some might be more useful.

    See this is where you go wrong. You don't start from first principles. For that car journey to happen or that dentist to be useful or for the lead to get on (or off) your roof, someone has to actually do it.
    klintock wrote:
    Your also using state imposed "capital" for your analysis, which leaves out the vast majority of non state money transactions.

    Errr...no. Its an analysis of what happens. If you can get your head round the fact that some people own resources and the vast majority of people have to sell their labour. get paid in money which they then swap for things they need (use values), then it all follows. It can get quite complex, because use value and exchange value differs depending on where in the scheme you sit, so I'm not surprised you have difficulty understanding. But it starts from first principles - people need things to live (use values) and people swap things for profit (exchange values) using a medium of equivalence. M-C-M'
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Oh it is a symbol, but it's not money just because it's a symbol.

    Otherwise I could just invent symbols all day and get rich. I did explain it kinda badly tbh.

    What an absurd thing to say. :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote:
    so, it doesn't actually matter if it's a myth (of the signified) or not, or whether in fact we know how or why it is even a mythology- if we accept the myth then it becomes real. maybe.

    Yep. This is what Marx calls "commodity fetishism". What Baudrillard might call simulacra.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Sure, but it's ability to be money isn't down to it's being a symbol, it's down to the fact that you can trade it. Money is anything you can trade for goods and services.

    Yes. It has to have an agreed upon equivalence though for trade to work.
    klintock wrote:
    Also, we can't hold the same opinion or conclusion about anything, let alone a symbol. A hundred pounds to you and a hundred pounds to Richard Branson are very different things, although objectively you might say it's the same.

    Yep. So? I've mentioned this before too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm describing how capitalism works now, rather than (as you are) focussing on how I'd like it to be.

    Two things - first of all you are describing statism or state capitalsim and not capitalism. Secondly, because of your need to do everything through the state you ignore other alternatives.
    So people never sell things for a profit? Errr...I think reality would beg to differ.

    No, people only ever sell things at a profit. As labour is another commodity or type of money, it is only ever sold at a profit. This means that if you are selling your labour you are getting more for it than it is worth to you. that is it's you sold it for a profit. Everybody wins.
    You seem to redefine words to suit your arguments. This is why its an almost impossible task to debate with you, you change defintions and goalposts all the time.

    See above explanation. As you already know, language means different things to different people. If you don't check and just assume you understand what's going on well..... :rolleyes:
    Oh dear klintock. Of course money is a symbol. Its something that stands for something else. £2.50 = a pint of lager = a tube journey. See? As for this - "The market always chooses gold". Talk about reification! "the market" isn't a thing, its a social relation.

    See explanation of how money is a symbol, but it's not actually a needed part of it being money, see explanation in other post. It's not reification, it's nominalisation, as in fact is money and all other nouns. You understood what i meant I am sure, so the job of communication was done. Which is all I am really after.

    This part of your post seems to conflict with this bit though -
    No. Labour is the final measure because for something to have use, it has to be worked on and people have to be paid for that work. Its not that hard get your head round.
    Only if you're insane.
    #
    Can you help me make sense of this rubbish?

    As I have pointed out multiple times, things only have value if you can swap them for something else, Labour no more has intrinsic value than toothpaste. you can easily see this if you stop calling it labour and turn it into any specific part of labour. Does mowing lawns have intrinsic value, does pulling teeth have intrinsic value, does even something as essential as cleansing water have intrinsic value?

    No. Course not. So you can't say labour is an onbjective measure of things because it's value is just as subjective as any other good.

    That being the case, I don't follow your argument at all.
    See this is where you go wrong. You don't start from first principles. For that car journey to happen or that dentist to be useful or for the lead to get on (or off) your roof, someone has to actually do it.

    No, this is where you are wrong. Someone has to have something worth trading in order for someone else to be asked to do it. They also have to want to trade that something for the good or service. That something has to be worth enough to the person to convince them to do it as well. That is, both persons must make a profit out of the exercise or they simply won't bother.

    I get my car journey or whathaveyou, you get paid. We both are better off than before we started, other wise you wouldn't bother and neither would I.

    Everybody makes a profit. Geddit?
    Errr...no. Its an analysis of what happens. If you can get your head round the fact that some people own resources and the vast majority of people have to sell their labour. get paid in money which they then swap for things they need (use values), then it all follows. It can get quite complex, because use value and exchange value differs depending on where in the scheme you sit, so I'm not surprised you have difficulty understanding. But it starts from first principles - people need things to live (use values) and people swap things for profit (exchange values) using a medium of equivalence. M-C-M'

    This is not an analysis of capitalism. It's an analysis of statism. There is no use value. There is only trade value. Your problem I think is that you don't see that people also trade with themseves as indivisuals and are calling it "use value" as though it's different from any other sort of trade.

    I have stuff, I put it to use. I will only do this if I can profit out of it. I trade with future self and weigh up the potential profit and loss and only trade if I think I will profit. Capitalism is therefore the ground state of being of everyone and certainyl won't be chaged by deadbeats with beards writing lengthy tomes.

    Do you really think people would have ever accepted paper money voluntarily?

    "Ooh, no gold for me Bob, i'll take these pieces of paper instead." Bollocks they would. So why would a person accept paper over substance (barring the hideous indoctrination of the school system but that has to come after this trick has been performed) if not under threat?

    Also any "medium of equivalence" is totally changable, it could even become gratitude. People give things for a smile all the time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    Hmm...maybe you and klint have more in common than at first glance. :D
    Blagsta and Klintock remind me of Mary and John in the Channel 4 comedy, Father Ted, always arguing with one another, but probably totally in love with each other. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock - you're still analysing things as you want them to be, not as they are. What's the point in that? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock - you're still analysing things as you want them to be, not as they are. What's the point in that? :confused:

    No, I am looking at things as they actually are, you are looking at things as you have been taught them to see.

    It's a funny position to take, calling me aspergers boy etc and claiming I have a problem with abstraction and also claiming that I have no idea about actuality at one and the same time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    No, I am looking at things as they actually are, you are looking at things as you have been taught them to see.

    No, you're not. You're saying things like "Labour no more has intrinsic value than toothpaste". Well of course it doesn't. But it makes no sense to talk of "intrinsic value" as value is always situated in an economic context. In the current context people get paid for labour and labour has to happen to transform raw materials into tradeable commodities. This is what you can't get your head round. Its not that difficult.
    klintock wrote:
    It's a funny position to take, calling me aspergers boy etc and claiming I have a problem with abstraction and also claiming that I have no idea about actuality at one and the same time.

    I can't make head nor tail of that sentence. :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Btw - of course there is use value. A house has use to me as shelter. It could also have exchange value if I was a property wheeler and dealer. Its use value would then be its exchange value. As I said earlier, it depends where you sit. If you're a capitalist, you buy things with money in order to sell them to get more money. If you're working class, you buy things in order to use them, not to trade them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Btw - of course there is use value. A house has use to me as shelter. It could also have exchange value if I was a property wheeler and dealer. Its use value would then be the same as its exchange value. As I said earlier, it depends where you sit. If you're a capitalist, you buy things with money in order to sell them to get more money. If you're working class, you buy things in order to use them, not to trade them.

    That's just trade to yourself - I explained this above. Trade is a use of things, and use is a kind of trade.

    Buying things to get more money assumes that there is only one type of money, which I have also dismissed with no answer from you.
    No, you're not. You're saying things like "Labour no more has intrinsic value than toothpaste". Well of course it doesn't.

    Now your contradicting yourself.
    In the current context people get paid for labour and labour has to happen to transform raw materials into tradeable commodities.

    People will always get paid for labour, and labour is always required to make things, it's just a fact of material reality. What does pointing this out over and over do for you?

    Your inability to see that it's the only way that things can occur, and your inability to see what money really is mean you are completely lost.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    That's just trade to yourself - I explained this above. Trade is a use of things, and use is a kind of trade.

    No, this makes no sense.
    klintock wrote:
    Buying things to get more money assumes that there is only one type of money, which I have also dismissed with no answer from you.

    There you go again, not actually accepting reality.
    klintock wrote:
    Now your contradicting yourself.

    No I'm not.
    klintock wrote:
    People will always get paid for labour,

    A little knowledge of history is useful here. Remember the land enclosure acts I mentioned a while ago? People were forced off the land into factories, making the capitalist mode of production the dominant one.
    klintock wrote:
    and labour is always required to make things, it's just a fact of material reality.

    Its something you appear to have trouble getting your head around.
    klintock wrote:
    What does pointing this out over and over do for you?

    Its starting from first principles, namely, how do we organise the material resources that we need? Y'know, the basis of that thing called economics?
    klintock wrote:
    Your inability to see that it's the only way that things can occur, and your inability to see what money really is mean you are completely lost.

    If you got your head out of your arse and educated yourself a little, you'd think a bit differently.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm just wondering what you think trade in capitalism actually means? You appear to be rather confused.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, this makes no sense.

    then you are a bit dim or something. You have a can of beans now and might want to eat it now or eat it later. You trade with your future self to decide what you will do. Simple. Even someone so detached from reality might get it.
    There you go again, not actually accepting reality.
    A little knowledge of history is useful here. Remember the land enclosure acts I mentioned a while ago? People were forced off the land into factories, making the capitalist mode of production the dominant one.

    You have a special idea about capitalism that I don't share. You see capitalism as somehow something to do with industrial processes. Why is this?

    Ok, let's descend into actual examples. Show me an example of what you are talking about cos you might as well be talking Swahili for the rest of your post. It makes no sense whatsoever to me. (Well I kind of get the insults)

    I'll try a simple statement and see what you make of it.

    Everybody who trades does so because they will make a profit out of the exchange.

    No doubt you have some weird problem with that, so lets have a go at it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    then you are a bit dim or something. You have a can of beans now and might want to eat it now or eat it later. You trade with your future self to decide what you will do. Simple. Even someone so detached from reality might get it.


    No, that's not trade.

    klintock wrote:
    You have a special idea about capitalism that I don't share. You see capitalism as somehow something to do with industrial processes. Why is this?

    Eh? No I don't. Its basically about class - a social relationship. Some people own land and resources and other people have to sell their labour for money so they can access the resources needed to live.
    klintock wrote:
    Ok, let's descend into actual examples. Show me an example of what you are talking about cos you might as well be talking Swahili for the rest of your post. It makes no sense whatsoever to me. (Well I kind of get the insults)

    I'll try a simple statement and see what you make of it.

    Everybody who trades does so because they will make a profit out of the exchange.

    No doubt you have some weird problem with that, so lets have a go at it.

    Everybody who trades does so because they will make a profit out of the exchange.


    Well, yes. This is exactly the point. People use money to buy stuff so they can get more money. M-C-M'. You however, seem to have rather an odd definition of "trade". One not shared by the rest of the human race.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'll repeat
    Blagsta wrote:
    I'm just wondering what you think trade in capitalism actually means? You appear to be rather confused.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, that's not trade.

    It differs how exactly?
    Eh? No I don't. Its basically about class - a social relationship. Some people own land and resources and other people have to sell their labour for money so they can access the resources needed to live.

    In state capitalism. And again, you are restricting your analysis to look at solely the money which those landowners will accept for access to those resources. As you don't accept that money can be anything you obviously will see limits where there might not be any. And why not just save up and buy your freedom as opposed to this political stuff?
    Well, yes. This is exactly the point. People use money to buy stuff so they can get more money. M-C-M'. You however, seem to have rather an odd definition of "trade". One not shared by the rest of the human race.

    But when you add in that money can be any substance whatsoever, and all people will only trade if they are going to make a profit it follows that free market capitalism is the best form of providing people what they want, because that way no one can ever lose out.

    Because capital is anything. It's not paper money, it's not a fixed thing in any way shape or form.

    So, what's the problem?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    It differs how exactly?

    Is that a serious question? :eek:
    klintock wrote:
    In state capitalism. And again, you are restricting your analysis to look at solely the money which those landowners will accept for access to those resources. As you don't accept that money can be anything you obviously will see limits where there might not be any. And why not just save up and buy your freedom as opposed to this political stuff?

    Yes, we're discussing how things actually are, not how you would like them to be.
    klintock wrote:
    But when you add in that money can be any substance whatsoever, and all people will only trade if they are going to make a profit it follows that free market capitalism is the best form of providing people what they want, because that way no one can ever lose out.

    Yes, we're discussing how things actually are, not how you would like them to be.
    klintock wrote:
    Because capital is anything. It's not paper money, it's not a fixed thing in any way shape or form.

    So, what's the problem?

    Yes, we're discussing how things actually are, not how you would like them to be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'll try again
    Blagsta wrote:
    I'm just wondering what you think trade in capitalism actually means? You appear to be rather confused.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In fact I'm wondering what you think capitalism is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, we're discussing how things actually are, not how you would like them to be.

    Ad infinitum. It's a really weird thing how locked into the beliefs the state hands out you really are. Answer some of the previous points or provide that real world example I was after or don't bother at all, cheers. I have little patience with crap like the last post.

    Yeah, it was a serious question. How is deciding what to do with a good you hold yourself at present by weighing it up with your future self any different than trading with someone else?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Ad infinitum. It's a really weird thing how locked into the beliefs the state hands out you really are. Answer some of the previous points or provide that real world example I was after or don't bother at all, cheers. I have little patience with crap like the last post.

    Well if you're going to refuse to discuss things how they actually are, in favour of some fictitious future world, I don't see the point in this debate.
    klintock wrote:
    Yeah, it was a serious question. How is deciding what to do with a good you hold yourself at present by weighing it up with your future self any different than trading with someone else?

    :banghead: You don't seem to have any idea of what is meant by "trade".

    I'll ask one more time - "I'm just wondering what you think trade in capitalism actually means? You appear to be rather confused."
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well if you're going to refuse to discuss things how they actually are, in favour of some fictitious future world, I don't see the point in this debate.

    Ever think that your thoughts about what is happening aren't accurate?
    You don't seem to have any idea of what is meant by "trade".

    Exchanging goods and/or services, and it always happens to produce profit and capital for both parties.
    I'll ask one more time - "I'm just wondering what you think trade in capitalism actually means? You appear to be rather confused."

    Right, done that, back up and answer some of my questions and provide that real world example as opposed to repeated assertions that lead nowhere. Ta.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Ever think that your thoughts about what is happening aren't accurate?

    Likewise. I've been giving this a lot of thought recently and it makes more sense to me the more I think about. Its precisely because a class analysis goes back to first principles that makes it so useful.
    klintock wrote:
    Exchanging goods and/or services, and it always happens to produce profit and capital for both parties.

    You haven't answered the question. "I'm just wondering what you think trade in capitalism actually means?

    klintock wrote:
    Right, done that, back up and answer some of my questions and provide that real world example as opposed to repeated assertions that lead nowhere. Ta.

    What real world examples?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Likewise. I've been giving this a lot of thought recently and it makes more sense to me the more I think about. Its precisely because a class analysis goes back to first principles that makes it so useful.

    Why do you think I have the ideas that I have, given my insistence on material evidence above all?

    Why do you think I would laughingly dismiss a class analysis?
    You haven't answered the question. "I'm just wondering what you think trade in capitalism actually means?

    I don't think that systems other than capitalism ever occur.

    Does that answer your question?
    What real world examples?

    Okidoki - a pregnant woman gets on a bus and a young man gets up and offers her his seat.

    Show me how this isn't a capitalist exchange.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Why do you think I have the ideas that I have, given my insistence on material evidence above all?

    Why do you think I would laughingly dismiss a class analysis?

    Because you're quiite clearly barking mad and hard of thinking. Combine that with your aversion to education and its not suprising you have a hard time accepting reality.
    klintock wrote:
    I don't think that systems other than capitalism ever occur.

    Does that answer your question?

    No. All it does is demonstrate that you don't have the first idea about anything.
    klintock wrote:
    Okidoki - a pregnant woman gets on a bus and a young man gets up and offers her his seat.

    Show me how this isn't a capitalist exchange.

    LOL! :D Are you serious? You are aren't you? You're completely away with the fairies! :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This might help you
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because you're quiite clearly barking mad and hard of thinking. Combine that with your aversion to education and its not suprising you have a hard time accepting reality

    :confused:

    I never leave it.
    No. All it does is demonstrate that you don't have the first idea about anything

    Some proof how other sytems can actually occur would be good.
    LOL! :D Are you serious? You are aren't you? You're completely away with the fairies! :D

    Yeah i knew this would be your response. so, let's go through it stage by stage.

    Looking at you definition of capitalism -

    An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

    Ok and we'll apply it to my example -

    Do the people own themselves privately.

    Yeah, the young man and woman own themselves. They own the means of producing this exchange themselves - that is the energy in their bodies they solely own. The stored muscle whatever it is...i forget the term.

    Ok, so what actually happens in our example - the man trades his seat with the woman, presumably in exchange for the feeling of having done a good deed which her acceptance will produce in him.

    Theres no outside agency, so it's done in a free market, and the good feeling that the man gets can be reinvested in something else and the woman gets to save energy by sitting down and the use of a seat. he capital gained by this might not last long, becasue the money isn't great but it still exists for a time.

    Like I said ANYTHING can be money, even feelings. Your economic analysis is ridiculous becasue it doesn't see every exchange (even the nominally social) as being economic in nature, when of course all of them are.
Sign In or Register to comment.