|
Foreign Investment in companies in the US (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| diggerz |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i have no problem with free trade agreements or laws that aim to bring down barriers between nations. what i do have a problem with is the US' tendency to push free trade in certain areas, whilst completely ignoring them in others. |
that's the problem with socialism and why it doesn't work.
a business will invest on those areas that will generate profit,
all the rest are not important. at least that's how it is in
business. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by diggerz
that's the problem with socialism and why it doesn't work.
a business will invest on those areas that will generate profit,
all the rest are not important. at least that's how it is in
business. |
How is that socialism!? That is capitalism. |
|
|
| diggerz |
no, that's anarchy.
hitler hitler hitler
dictator ftw!!
i'm out suckas! peace (for what it's worth) :wtf: :p |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
:stongue: |
It is ing insane. I think it should be repealed. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Capitalism = division of labor + means of production are not controlled by most workers. Opposite is socialism, where the means of production are controlled by all workers.
Free market = anyone can enter into production of any good. Opposite is regulated market, where there are conditions placed on entering into production of a good. The extreme of a regulated market is a planned economy.
Important distinctions. You can have capitalism without a free market or socialism with a free market. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| Capitalism is actually the process of creating and appropriating surplus value. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Capitalism is actually the process of creating and appropriating surplus value. |
Are you sure you want to go with that? "Surplus value" is weighted with bad economic assumptions, if you are using it in the sense that Marx did.
;) |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by diggerz
that's the problem with socialism and why it doesn't work.
a business will invest on those areas that will generate profit,
all the rest are not important. at least that's how it is in
business. |
If socialism doesn't work, why is Europe so awesome? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Are you sure you want to go with that? "Surplus value" is weighted with bad economic assumptions, if you are using it in the sense that Marx did.
;) |
well, im always happy to be corrected by you JBJ! but that's always been my understanding. the division of labour allows for the appropriation of surplus value created by the working class. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well, im always happy to be corrected by you JBJ! but that's always been my understanding. the division of labour allows for the appropriation of surplus value created by the working class. |
The idea of "surplus value" assumes that labor has some kind of objective value apart from whatever value that individuals or the market actually place on it. But this is obviously false: a person can labor vigorously all day by digging a big hole and filling it back in, but has he created anything of economic value? Only if someone else places enough importance on his actions to pay him for it.
Marx's idea is that employers "undershoot" the "real value" of their employees' labor, and that the result is "surplus value" in the form of "profit." But the "value" of labor is subjective and depends on many other circumstances apart from simply how hard or long the person works. One scientist may spend years and years developing a new anti-cancer chemical while another may hit upon the same chemical by accident after poking around in his lab for just a few days. But the circumstances of the development are irrelevant to its economic value; no matter how it was created, it will have the same value to a person stricken with cancer. The economic value of labor depends on how useful people find the result of that labor.
In spite of his confused concept of value and profit, Marx made many good criticisms about the conditions of factories and the reality that employers under early capitalism often paid their employees barely enough to live on. He should have stuck to these instead of getting bogged down in an incoherent theory. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
The idea of "surplus value" assumes that labor has some kind of objective value apart from whatever value that individuals or the market actually place on it. But this is obviously false: a person can labor vigorously all day by digging a big hole and filling it back in, but has he created anything of economic value? Only if someone else places enough importance on his actions to pay him for it.
Marx's idea is that employers "undershoot" the "real value" of their employees' labor, and that the result is "surplus value" in the form of "profit." But the "value" of labor is subjective and depends on many other circumstances apart from simply how hard or long the person works. |
i agree with your definition, but i still believe that the basic concept of surplus value just means that workers are paid less than the value of whatever they create, and even though there might not be an "objective" value of labour, the market clearly sets it in operation, in modern times it would be the minimum wage. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
If socialism doesn't work, why is Europe so awesome? |
It just is. It defies belief. It is the centre of the world. It has such a diverse history and people.
Europe FTW! |
|
|
|
|
