A question that any true socialist / capitalist should ask themselves.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Lumenari

OK, so what is more valuable to a persons business venture, the capital or the labor put in?

Christ wept.

It would depend on the business.

One sentence, only two words with more than one syllable.

Let me try to put it in simpler terms.

If you sold books to publishers and represented 6 writers, labor would be your only worry.

Labor, in this case, would be the most important... intellectual labor.

If you had the widget factory I brought up, labor would be the least thing you would worry about.

In the really real world, a business owner has several types of capital to play with and has to balance those assets depending on their business.

You can have the best machinery in the world and if you don't have the personnel to run and maintain them, then your physical capital doesn't matter.

You can have the brightest people on the planet standing around in a room with no machinery then your labor doesn't matter.

It's not as cut and dry as you think.

Which makes me think that you really don't run a business.

Capital is a difficult word to define. However the more we speak about it in this topic, the more we will understand how each of us here defines it.

"Because the term "capital" can be quite confusing in our modern paper/electronic world, I want you to imagine a much simpler human civilization. Imagine an ancient Greek city. All the buildings made of stone and mud, the horse carts and agricultural tools, the linens and skins worn as clothing, the knowledge base passed down through generations; all these creations of man's intellect were the capital of the time. . . . . .
. . . If I build a house I have created capital. By owning and living in a home, I am consuming that capital slowly. If I were to buy a specialized tool and use it to make something new, then I have employed capital to create more capital."
fofoa.blogspot.com...


I get the impression that the OP is coming from a socialist perspective using words like 'exploit' and 'upper hand' in loaded ways. The OP would see me as coming from a capitalism perspective when I start talking about how Marx was flawed because he didn't get the dividing line correct between workers and capital owners. Captialism is good because it allows us to work hard today and save the fruits of labour for later in life, or pass on to our children.

The good news is that we are both on the same side, us capitalists and socialists, we oppose the way the world is going.

"These Marxists hate "capitalism", or actually they hate what they think is capitalism and what they refer to as capitalism which is really just the ridiculous $IMFS (United States Dollar International Monetary Financial System) which we hate as well, albeit for slightly different ideological reasons. So in a way, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing comes into play here a bit in that Yanis and I both think the same thing about the $IMFS—that it is imploding—only he calls it capitalism."
fofoa.blogspot.com...

The earths resources are there for everybody and are not capital . ( few exceptions )

Anything of value is produced by the sweat of man gold has to be mined, Rubys need to be found, oysters need to be shucked , enough food to be traded need’s to be cultivated,the wheel needs to be invented and don’t forget the most important. Beer needs to be brewed .

Labor is needed to create commodities that fill a need which makes them wanted .

Even under the barter system you traded for what you desired and needed .

Labor comes first because if man didn’t make it . The guy across the table already had it .

Text

a reply to: Lumenari

I am literally the labor in the business I work in. I weld structural steel for sky scrapers and bridges. We also get our steel from all over the world.

But at the same time I am fully aware that several sources of 'office workers' have worked their ass off to get to me. and on top of that, several companies have worked day and night get us the steel to make such a structure.

So it all boils down to this statement:

If you sold books to publishers and represented 6 writers, labor would be your only worry.

Labor, in this case, would be the most important... intellectual labor.

Do you disagree?

My question still stands, which is more valuable labour or capital?

originally posted by: strongfp

Text

a reply to: Lumenari

I am literally the labor in the business I work in. I weld structural steel for sky scrapers and bridges. We also get our steel from all over the world.

But at the same time I am fully aware that several sources of 'office workers' have worked their ass off to get to me. and on top of that, several companies have worked day and night get us the steel to make such a structure.

So it all boils down to this statement:

If you sold books to publishers and represented 6 writers, labor would be your only worry.

Labor, in this case, would be the most important... intellectual labor.

Do you disagree?

My question still stands, which is more valuable labour or capital?

It would depend on the business.

I understand now why people get frustrated talking to socialists.

They don't seem to understand basic economics.

You keep your thread going on what came first, the chicken or the egg...

I'm trying to tell you it's a balance between both.

Start your own company, learn some reality and then check back in with your thoughts.

Because you know, if you were really good at what you did then you wouldn't be working for someone else.

Basic economics, again.

I get the impression that the OP is coming from a socialist perspective using words like 'exploit' and 'upper hand' in loaded ways. The OP would see me as coming from a capitalism perspective when I start talking about how Marx was flawed because he didn't get the dividing line correct between workers and capital owners. Captialism is good because it allows us to work hard today and save the fruits of labour for later in life, or pass on to our children.

a reply to: inthewinterdark

Although I did not use such terms. I understand where you are coming from. And I really appreciate such a response (not just the quoted)

I too, feel that capital is something that humans build upon, I once had a conversation with a hard core capitalist and he really gave me a lesson on capital as a whole, that the value you put into a product should reflect the capital you get out of it. In other words, if you make a top notch product you should get top notch price.

But, this really made me question the whole system. And made me think about one type of person, capitalist.

a reply to: Lumenari

I understand now why people get frustrated talking to socialists.

They don't seem to understand basic economics.

Or they are the arm of economics that capitalist crutch themselves on until they can make them redundant. Which again fortifies the question ....

a reply to: strongfp

Not necessarily, as the value of the "Capital/Resource" is
intrinsic to the demand of "Labor".
For instance, using your gold point, if Gold Capital costs
500 value system per ounce to extract and refine,
but Labor/Demand realizes 100 value system to market,
it would be disagreeable for both Capital and Labor
to proceed in the supply endeavor.

Your question regarding Human,Intellectual,Machine labor
is a moot point for as mentioned, the value is based upon
the demand within the "Value" system.

From a personal perspective, I believe Capital and Labor
are fundamentally equal as it is a complimentary existence.
At times, some forms of "labor" are more valuable than some
forms of "Capital". Likewise, at times, some forms of "Capital"
are more valuable than "Labor". There is no clear dividing line.
The dividing line is subject to the requirements of the current
demand.
The Waves on the Beach would have told you all this
if you would only have listened.

a reply to: Lumenari

I don’t think anyone understands economics nowadays. If we did, we’d realize that debt based upon compounding interest always grows exponentially faster than any economy, and always leads to the eventual collapse of empires, and we would kill the bankers.

a reply to: Wildmanimal

I agree. They certainly go hand in hand.

I must ask, tho. Do you think capital will consume labor one day?

Depends on where you stand.

If you are a laborer, you value capital (ie wealth). To get the best capital, you should leverage your labor for best value.

If you are a business owner, you value labor. To get the best labor, you negotiate the best risk/reward of your capital.

As someone said earlier, it's cyclical like plants and animals. One values the output of the other, and inputs its own value into the system.

a reply to: strongfp

Ha, at the rate of Human Population,
clearly, "labor" will exhaust "Capital".

It is only a matter of constructed time.

Then again, Capital/The Earth/ Resources might
give us all a shake and be rid of us.
Just for hoots and giggles.

Will it be worth the ball busting when:

A. Give you money to get women, food an a #hole.

B. Give you women, food an a # hole.

C. Do we get benefits an dental?

a reply to: strongfp

Does labour come before capital or does capital come before labour? Which is more important in the whole grand scale of economics.
Which is more valuable?

If I am mixing a screwdriver, which is more valuable, the orange juice or the vodka?

If I am making a sandwich, which is more valuable, the bread or the meat?

If I am digging a hole, which is more valuable, the shovel or the person using it?

Like the question you pose, none of the above make any sense. Speaking as someone who successfully ran a corporation for ten years, the question cannot be answered because it makes false assumptions. The purpose of a business, any business, is to make a profit by supplying others with goods or services. What is necessary to supply those goods and services is what's important, and one cannot provide a good or service without some amount of both capital and labor. Even Lumenari's example of a writer requires some capital... computers, paper, pencils... something to write with.

The false assumption you make is that one is more vital than the other... and that is simply not true. Paint a portrait without paint, canvas, or brush... dig a hole without a shovel or other digging implement... transport material without a vehicle of some kind... build a house without nails, wood, or other materials.

Or... paint a portrait with paint, canvas, and brushes but no one using them... dig a hole with a shovel but no one using it... transport materials with a vehicle but no one loading it, driving it, or unloading it...build a house with all the material in the world but no one there to use it.

You can perform none of the above goals. No one can. Therefore, until you can perform them, your question is nonsensical.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Lumenari

if you were really good at what you did then you wouldn't be working for someone else.

I rarely disagree with you, Lumenari, but I will this time.

If I am just looking for money, I will start my own business. That way I can profit from both my labor and my capital. However, not everyone is looking for money alone. At this stage in my life, I do not want to run a company. The headaches dealing with both labor and capital are too great and I value peace of mind above money. That is my choice and I do not disparage those who do run a business to maximize income; they are doing what is right for them, while I am doing what is right for me. Those two things need not be the same.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: strongfp
I will keep it simple, short and sweet. My reasoning behind this question is very broad and in depth. But I want to hear ATS point of view, thoughts etc.
The overall equation and question is:
Does labour come before capital or does capital come before labour? Which is more important in the whole grand scale of economics.
Which is more valuable?

The value of labour and capital changes in proportion to each other. Desire to consume determines value.

Labour becomes worthless when there is too much of it or automation makes labour obsolete.

Capital, paradoxically, becomes worth less or even worthless if too much is concentrated in too few hands. The more money in people's hands the more valuable money becomes because people become addicted to greed and spending.

When people have very little money there's no desire to spend it. However, people love to copulate and have babies. Having babies creates desire to have money and spend money.

I would say labour comes first because it creates the desire to use money. Once money is in use then it can be accumulated. Labour is obviously more valuable than capital because money is just a medium of exchange. You can't have wealth without a system of leverage. You can't leverage anyone if you have no one to leverage.

There is a theory gaining popularity that in order to get the economy moving you need helicopter money in the hands of ordinary people so they have something to spend. Automation is concentrating too much capital creating little desire for spending. Consequently money becomes worth less because people are focusing on other activities requiring little or no money.

Helicopter Money

"A second set of policies, closer to the original description of helicopter money, and more innovative in the context of monetary history, involves the central bank making direct transfers to the private sector financed with base money, without the direct involvement of fiscal authorities.[2][3] This has also been called a citizens' dividend or a distribution of future seigniorage."

The purpose of economy is to serve people by creating systems of leverage for the wealthy. Once it flips around and people only exist to serve the economy everything grinds to a halt or virtually no growth because people lose their desire to participate in slavery. Once enough people lose enough interest in spending the economy implodes with deflation or hyperinflation.

Interesting discussion on helicopter money and the value of labour being deflated by automation:

a reply to: strongfp

Capital is more valuable than labor.

Don’t believe me and you can drive by any Home Depot and you will see labor sitting there unused. Therefore labor is useless without capital.

However capital itself has a value associated with it and can never be useless. By the very definition given to the item, capital, it is guaranteed to be of value even when labor is absent.

originally posted by: strongfp
I will keep it simple, short and sweet. My reasoning behind this question is very broad and in depth. But I want to hear ATS point of view, thoughts etc.

The overall equation and question is:

Does labour come before capital or does capital come before labour? Which is more important in the whole grand scale of economics.
Which is more valuable?

How do define capital?

Are you talking about actual cash, or do you also mean goods and services as well?I

I've lived under several socialist governments in different countries, and generally labor and capital are not mutually exclusive, your aim is to ensure that you receive fair capital in exchange for your labor.

In essence, socialism isn't about getting "free stuff". It's about preventing exploitation, and ensuring that people can live up to their full potential and are not held back by things such as poverty.

For example, under socialism the poor should be educated so that they may labor more effectively. An uneducated laborer is a wasted resource, if education makes them a better laborer then you should educate them as this will benefit both them and the state.

If somebody is uneducated they will not be able to pull their weight . They will be a burden on the state and on their families as they won't be able to support themselves and they won't be able to service the state.

Of course, education doesn't have to mean free college, it might be an apprenticeship so that they can labor in a trace.

The more effective a laborer is more capital they can generate, which in turn helps to support other laborers.

a reply to: strongfp

The answer is the chicken came first because the egg cant produce the proteins to make its own shell. Neither labor or capital exist without one being willing to barter. Just a thought.