/liberty/ - Liberty

>>71731

Private surveillance:

>Facebook tells a marketing company that you like CoD and busty housewifes, after you made a profile on their site

>You get embarassing ads for a full month before they mistake your liking of cute puppies for a genuine interest in affordable dog food and spam you with that instead

Public surveillance:

>Government installs spyware on your computer and threatens you with imprisonment if you do not disclose your encryption keys

>You may or may not be declared a terrorist and shipped to Gitmo

>At least they solemnly swear not to sterilize you for being "asocial", they stopped thinking that's a good idea some time after the thirties

And you don't see a difference here, at all?

>>71734

>Taxes

That should cover between 30 and 70 percent of your income.

>Surplus Value

It's a meme and has never been anything else. It's ignorant of time-preference and subjective value more generally.

>>71734

>surplus value

Stale may may

>>71735

More like Private surveillance:

>Google, Facebook and Apple will sell your navigation data to the NSA and give preferential treatment to those whose political opinions align with them thanks to datamining

>>71747

That's more an expression of corporatism. However, in a capitalist society, private corporations would collect every piece of information they could about their own employees and exchange that information heavily on the basis of having complete and utter control over your life through being able to fire you with no chance to return to the job market if you ever did or said anything they didn't like.

Not a free and open society at all.

>>71751

>However, in a capitalist society, private corporations would collect every piece of information they could about their own employees and exchange that information heavily on the basis of having complete and utter control over your life through being able to fire you with no chance to return to the job market if you ever did or said anything they didn't like.

So, if every person said things they don't like, would the evil corporations fire everyone, and make a profit without having any workers, or would they give workers more leeway? If you say the former, then you're officially retarded, and if you say the latter, then you implicitly acknowledge that there is such a thing as a pressure of companies to accomodate their workers.

>>71758

Companies do not need to accommodate their workers so long as there is an excess supply of labor on the market in the form of high numbers of unemployed but highly skilled workers, because they can replace anybody in a week or two.

>>71761

So you say that there is no competition for workers, that any worker can be replaced so fast that no matter how quickly the company fires them, it can always produce at peak capacity?

>>71763

Yes, and this puts the workers at a complete disadvantage, because they have no ability to make demands without worker organization/striking, but the corporations can fix that by just making it a fireable offense to do any type of worker organization. This is especially an issue when corporations all decide to start sharing as much information about their workers in general, which they can do more easily than ever in the information era, were there no regulations against such things.

>>71764

I know people with levels of expertise that are high enough to sway entire corporate policy simply by threat of leaving for a competitor

skilled work pays an insane amount of money, the only labor that is instantly replaceable is unskilled labor

>>71764

Alright, you affirm this:

>So you say that there is no competition for workers, that any worker can be replaced so fast that no matter how quickly the company fires them, it can always produce at peak capacity?

So if every single company on the globe fired all its workers after a day, and no fired worker ever got rehired, then no company would ever run out of workers. Now, McDonalds has a total of one and a half million workers. By my calculations, if it did this, it would run out of workers after about thirteen years, because then it would've hired every single person on earth once. And that's just one company.

Absurd? Yes, but it's based on your own description of how the world works. Your argument was that competition does not exist in labor, period. You cannot keep this argument up and yet deny that companies cannot do whatever they want without running out of labor.

>>71775

Forgot flag.

>>71735

> It's ignorant of time-preference and subjective value more generally.

You mean shit that doesn't fucking exist and has no relevance to profit anyway. It is impossible to explain where profits come without saying it's a result of paying the worker less than the value of the thing he produces.

>>71779

>time-preference doesn't exist

Isn't the existence of time-preference one of the first concessions Marxists will usually make when confronted with inadequacies in Das Kapital?

>>71779

>You mean shit that doesn't fucking exist

Prove that it doesn't exist. More specifically, prove that action is possible without time-preference and subjective value.

>and has no relevance to profit anyway. It is impossible to explain where profits come without saying it's a result of paying the worker less than the value of the thing he produces.

Can you prove that, too? Because as I see it, that people seek profit is easily explained with time-preference and subjective value. In particular, workers earn a profit by being paid in advance, without having to bear any entrepreneurial risks or even the costs of the capital, and that's a better deal to them than receiving the full product of their labor - the finished consumer good - but without all these perks. If it wasn't, they wouldn't take that deal, because it's inconceivable that an actor would willingly take an action that he doesn't prefer to all of the alternatives.

>>71780

I've never heard of that.

>>71781

>Prove that it doesn't exist. More specifically, prove that action is possible without time-preference and subjective value.

Time-preference only exists on a small, everyday life scale. It's ridiculous to think a Capitalist has any kind of time-preference when their entire job and the only reason they have so much capital in the first place is to invest it in order to get more. Furthermore, when it actually comes to personally saving, time-preference has nothing to do with it because the people with a high income save while those with a low income don't; you could say that's the reason why they have a low income but that'd only make sense if most people derived an income from capital in the first place. Subjective value exists when it comes to what an individual prefers and that has an influence on the demand of certain commodities, but it has no basis on what decides a commodity's exchange value.

> Because as I see it, that people seek profit is easily explained with time-preference and subjective value

We're not talking about why people seek profits, we're talking about how profits originate.

>In particular, workers earn a profit by being paid in advance

You're equivocating and not using proper terminology.

>without having to bear any entrepreneurial risks

Of course those being the only risks that matter. Not like risking bodily harm or death, or the risk of choosing a dead end career choice or a job that lays you off matter.

>costs of the capital

The capital they don't have and likely never will without taking a loan that just makes them an employee of the bank.

>and that's a better deal to them than receiving the full product of their labor

You can't say it's a better deal when there's no only deal available. Even if they did somehow get the capital to start a business without ending up a worker of the bank, their business (depending on the statistics) either has a 50% or 80% chance of failure within the first five years, sometimes less. For the vast minority of people who start a business, the majoriy will not be able to have a livelihood from it.

>If it wasn't, they wouldn't take that deal, because it's inconceivable that an actor would willingly take an action that he doesn't prefer to all of the alternatives.

None of what you said contradicts the existence of surplus-value. You're simply saying it's an economic exchange, and you're right: the worker pays the proprietor for the use of his property in the form of work done in excess of the costs, that is what surplus-value is, that is how the proprietor gets paid.

>>71790

>It's ridiculous to think a Capitalist has any kind of time-preference when their entire job and the only reason they have so much capital in the first place is to invest it in order to get more.

I don't think you fully understand what time-preference is.

>>71790

>Time-preference only exists on a small, everyday life scale. It's ridiculous to think a Capitalist has any kind of time-preference when their entire job and the only reason they have so much capital in the first place is to invest it in order to get more.

But that would imply that there's a fundamental difference between the action of capitalists and consumers. In particular, it opens the question of why capitalists produce at all at any given moment, instead of lengthening the chains of production to increase total output and hence profit no matter how long it would take to do that.

I also don't see how what you said about capitalists implies that they don't have a time-preference. If that were the case, then they would prefer any larger profit to a smaller profit even if the difference in profit was almost infenitisimal but no matter how large the difference before the profits are achieved. So they would rather gain ten dollars in fifty years than nine dollars now.

>Furthermore, when it actually comes to personally saving, time-preference has nothing to do with it because the people with a high income save while those with a low income don't; you could say that's the reason why they have a low income but that'd only make sense if most people derived an income from capital in the first place.

Or you can explain it with marginal utility. Two actors will

>Subjective value exists when it comes to what an individual prefers and that has an influence on the demand of certain commodities, but it has no basis on what decides a commodity's exchange value.

It does. It determines the exchange value. To be exact, the valuations of the marginal buyer and the marginal seller determine it.

>We're not talking about why people seek profits, we're talking about how profits originate.

But the two questions are related, at least from a subjectivist position. And the subjectivist position, as I argue, is the correct one.

>You're equivocating and not using proper terminology.

I'm not using your terminology. For Austrians, there's no equivocation and no false terminology in calling what a worker earns his profit. We're not Ricardo.

>Of course those being the only risks that matter. Not like risking bodily harm or death, or the risk of choosing a dead end career choice or a job that lays you off matter.

Sure there's disadvantages to working for a wage, instead of being self-employed. Although death and bodily harm hardly count because work accidents don't care about your employment status when you're working on heavy machinery.

The thing is, workers do get a compensation for working for a wage. Is this compensation objectively worth the new risks? No, but only because there is no objective value, not in economics. And subjectively, most of them seem to prefer it.

>The capital they don't have and likely never will without taking a loan that just makes them an employee of the bank.

Where do you think capitalists get their capital from? Unless they're born rich, they either have to save for themselves, which means forgoing consumption so they will have it better later on, or they take up a loan. In either case, they do something unpleasant that others don't want to do, including other workers.

>You can't say it's a better deal when there's no only deal available. Even if they did somehow get the capital to start a business without ending up a worker of the bank, their business (depending on the statistics) either has a 50% or 80% chance of failure within the first five years, sometimes less. For the vast minority of people who start a business, the majoriy will not be able to have a livelihood from it.

Exactly. That's their risk and it's usually more severe than being laid off. Still, some take it, and I don't see what's unfair about them being compensated for the risks they take.

>None of what you said contradicts the existence of surplus-value. You're simply saying it's an economic exchange, and you're right: the worker pays the proprietor for the use of his property in the form of work done in excess of the costs, that is what surplus-value is, that is how the proprietor gets paid.

There's no place for surplus-value from a subjectivist position, and a subjectivist position is preferable. I'm sure there's many threads in the catalog about the shortcomings of objective value theories.

>>71795

It's whether you prefer less in the short-term or more in the long-term.

>>71806

>But that would imply that there's a fundamental difference between the action of capitalists and consumers

There is. The main purpose of the money of capitalists is for it to be used as capital, while for the consumers it's to be used to buy things to consume. A capitalist isn't thinking "I could buy this $1m house now or I could invest that money and buy a $10m later".

>capitalists produce at all at any given moment, instead of lengthening the chains of production to increase total output and hence profit no matter how long it would take to do that.

They don't have infinite money otherwise they would. They're playing a game same as everyone else, and they have to balance short-term gains with long-term.

>If that were the case, then they would prefer any larger profit to a smaller profit even if the difference in profit was almost infenitisimal but no matter how large the difference before the profits are achieved. So they would rather gain ten dollars in fifty years than nine dollars now.

If they had infinite capital and knew the future, then yes, they probably would. Time-preference implies they're making some sort of sacrifice, some kind of deterred gratification, when in reality they're just doing whatever they can to make as much profit as possible. Some might prefer short or long-term strategies but only because they think those strategies will ultimately pay off the most.

>Or you can explain it with marginal utility. Two actors will

?

>It does. It determines the exchange value. To be exact, the valuations of the marginal buyer and the marginal seller determine it.

That's just a statement, you're not giving anything to back it up. The exchange value of a thing is based upon its cost of production which is determined but the socially necessary labor within it, that is why two commodities with the same exchange value will have the same equilibrium price.

>But the two questions are related, at least from a subjectivist position

One is a question of psychology, the other is a question of material fact. Many people might have different reasons for why they seek profit, but there can only be one reason for the origin of it.

>I'm not using your terminology. For Austrians, there's no equivocation and no false terminology in calling what a worker earns his profit.

There is a very clear difference between the profits of a business and the wages of a worker. You're equivocating because you're implying they're essentially the same.

>Although death and bodily harm hardly count because work accidents don't care about your employment status when you're working on heavy machinery.

How do the very real risks that only exist because of your job not count? You imply the employer takes all the risks, but really the only risk intrinsic to his job is the risk of becoming a wage-laborer like his employees, whereas his employees might face the constant risk of dying.

>And subjectively, most of them seem to prefer it.

You can't say they prefer it when they have no other option.

>they either have to save for themselves, which means forgoing consumption so they will have it better later on

You're implying that for most entrepreneurs they save to start their business because they think it'll make them rich. You're also implying that these self-made men are the majority of capitalists.

>In either case, they do something unpleasant that others don't want to do, including other workers.

Or that other's are incapable of doing. You can't say it's a preference when someone is incapable of doing it, especially the poor in 3rd world countries.

>Exactly. That's their risk and it's usually more severe than being laid off

But not as severe as dying because you fell from a tree.

>Still, some take it, and I don't see what's unfair about them being compensated for the risks they take.

They're not being compensated for the risks at all. If they fail they get shit, no matter how many risks they took, and once you reach a certain point of wealth, you can make significantly more than some startup shop owner with practically no risk.

>There's no place for surplus-value from a subjectivist position

Then where do profits come from? Capital can't magically reproduce itself.

>>71848

>It's whether you prefer less in the short-term or more in the long-term.

So you don't understand it. Time-preference is the increased valuation placed on a good received at an earlier rather than later date. Quantity is a secondary and separate factor.

>>71848

>It's whether you prefer less in the short-term or more in the long-term.

No, but keep going with talking out of your ass. Time preference deals with what action you want to take in order to satisfy a need either immediately, or at a later time. The sooner you want it the greater the cost. The quantity is not relevant and has no place in the definition.

>A capitalist isn't thinking "I could buy this $1m house now or I could invest that money and buy a $10m later".

They pretty much do. They're not the demonized beings divorced from reality you want them to be. They make economic decisions like anyone else, on a larger scale. The same way you can choose to either save your money and study or buy fancier shoes/TV or buy a tiny share of stocks. Of course, in a State manipulated economy, the one with more Capital will either be forced to spend it right away as the currency is continuously being devalued and worth less the more they hold it, or save for future investment.

>They don't have infinite money otherwise they would

>An impossibility doesn't exist but if it did it would matter. A completely irrelevant and redundant reply. If anyone had infinite money they wouldn't be working or investing it.

>If they had infinite capital and knew the future, then yes, they probably would

Again. Absolutely meaningless to practical reality and still wrong.

>The exchange value of a thing is based upon its cost of production which is determined but the socially necessary labor within it, that is why two commodities with the same exchange value will have the same equilibrium price.

The exchange value is based on many factors besides costs to produce. The most relevant one being how much the consumer would pay for it. The cost to produce alone only determines whether it is worth for the producer to produce at all.

>here is a very clear difference between the profits of a business and the wages of a worker. You're equivocating because you're implying they're essentially the same.

The wage is a definite fixed amount as agreed upon that will be paid on a specific date regardless whether the produced goods have sold yet, or at all. It's independent of entrepreneurial risk. In that it is different. The profit of the employer is neither guaranteed, nor steady. Even in bad times he must keep paying the same, negotiate lower pay, or fold.

>You're implying that for most entrepreneurs they save to start their business because they think it'll make them rich. You're also implying that these self-made men are the majority of capitalists.

That's generally what the productive side of the industry works. They don't have to be the majority, but they have to exist for anyone to be able to leech off of them. Someone ultimately has to do the work properly.

>Or that other's are incapable of doing.

And? What does that change in reality? Economic laws don't change depending on your available capital.

>But not as severe as dying because you fell from a tree.

Make consumers value your work more then.

>once you reach a certain point of wealth, you can make significantly more than some startup shop owner with practically no risk.

So as soon as you have more capital you no longer need to make more and you gain perfect information? "Capital can't magically reproduce itself."

>Then where do profits come from? Capital can't magically reproduce itself.

From producing more wealth than you previously had. You are not extracting "more value" from some fixed objective quantity for which you somehow have objective means of measuring. It's entirely dependent on the current subjective marginal rate of the market. You can't have a surplus of something not yet produced.

>>71848

>It's whether you prefer less in the short-term or more in the long-term.

He explained it well:

>Time-preference is the increased valuation placed on a good received at an earlier rather than later date. Quantity is a secondary and separate factor.

Time-preference is a precondition of all action. If you were indifferent to whether you receive a good now, or later, you would never act. The same is true of capitalists. If they were indifferent as to whether they make a huge profit now or a month from now, they would not make profits at all, they'd indefinitely postpone them.

>There is. The main purpose of the money of capitalists is for it to be used as capital, while for the consumers it's to be used to buy things to consume. A capitalist isn't thinking "I could buy this $1m house now or I could invest that money and buy a $10m later".

Every person is both investing and consuming, though. No capitalist can invest his entire income, he has to decide between investing more and between consuming some of it. In the past, some capitalists lived under conditions not unlike those of the working class, because they decided to invest most of what they had. This is still the case in many businesses. Remember that Fortune 500 companies are the exception, not the rule.

>They don't have infinite money otherwise they would. They're playing a game same as everyone else, and they have to balance short-term gains with long-term.

If they had infinite money, they would still choose short-term gains over long-term gains, all other things equal.

>If they had infinite capital and knew the future, then yes, they probably would. Time-preference implies they're making some sort of sacrifice, some kind of deterred gratification, when in reality they're just doing whatever they can to make as much profit as possible. Some might prefer short or long-term strategies but only because they think those strategies will ultimately pay off the most.

No. If they had no time-preference at all, they wouldn't act. You need to acknowledge time-preference or else all action becomes incomprehensible.

>That's just a statement, you're not giving anything to back it up. The exchange value of a thing is based upon its cost of production which is determined but the socially necessary labor within it, that is why two commodities with the same exchange value will have the same equilibrium price.

Your error, I think, is to try to translate my theories into yours, instead of accepting them for what they are. That won't help you understand them, and you have to understand them if you want to effectively criticize them. What you have done right now is to tell me what your theory says instead, but that's not a critique. What would be a critique is to tell me what your theory says and then give a general reason why yours is correct and mine isn't, but that would take us into methodology.

That said: The marginal buyer is the buyer who will drop out if costs are raised further. The marginal seller is the seller who will drop out if costs are lowered. From these definitions, the market price follows logically as lying somewhere in the intersection of how the marginal buyer and seller valuate the good.

>>71848

>>71880

Continued:

>There is a very clear difference between the profits of a business and the wages of a worker. You're equivocating because you're implying they're essentially the same.

Both wages and profits are a form of income, and I was talking about income. There is no equivocation, because I used them in a sense in which they are familiar. Neither was my terminology misleading.

>How do the very real risks that only exist because of your job not count? You imply the employer takes all the risks, but really the only risk intrinsic to his job is the risk of becoming a wage-laborer like his employees, whereas his employees might face the constant risk of dying.

I wasn't talking about entrepreneurial risk in what you quoted, I was talking about risks associated with work. And the workers will always face them as long as they work, whether they work for a capitalist or a cooperative or whether they are hermits making their living in the wild. I do not see how you could solve this.

>You're implying that for most entrepreneurs they save to start their business because they think it'll make them rich. You're also implying that these self-made men are the majority of capitalists.

I'm not. How the majority started is irrelevant. What's relevant is that for capital to exist in the first place, someone has to forgo consumption and save. That would still be true even if all capitalists stole their capital from those that did save. It would be true even if that saving hadn't been voluntary, but enforced. If either scenario was true, then the ethical course of action would be to return the capital to those that had to make this sacrifice. What would be unethical would be to instead give the capital to the workers. Then the original robbers would be robbed, sure, but they would be supplanted by others who have just as little claim on the capital and just as little intention to recompense those who afforded them the capital.

>Or that other's are incapable of doing. You can't say it's a preference when someone is incapable of doing it, especially the poor in 3rd world countries.

If that were the case, then yes, we would have to conclude that saving was impossible. But that's not true for everyone, or even the majority. In the First World, every worker has the means to save and become self-employed.

>But not as severe as dying because you fell from a tree.

Which, again, the workers would have to take even if no capital existed, or even if they owned all the capital.