reply to post by Duamutef9
For every man that profits, there is a man who has lost everything. This is the dirty secret that capitalists spend so much energy trying to
I want to address this identity you've put forward. Namely, that the quantity of men who profit is equal to the quantity of men who lose everything.
Context makes clear that your definition of profit
goes something like this: the return received on a business undertaking after all operating
expenses have been met. (def. number 2 at www.thefreedictionary.com...
). If this is not true than your treatment of capitalism (viz. def. 1
) is, in my view, arbitrary.
At face value the statement is not certain. Maybe it's true, but maybe it isn't. Only an empirical study can show whether this identity is true at a
given instance in time. For that matter the instance
would be over a range of time, but social scientists do their best. Anyway, if you're
claiming that the identity is a general principle of capitalism--that there is an as yet unknown, time-invariant constant to capitalism such that the
identity is found to be true after repeated studies, then you've got your hands full to make that case. I would even say that if you could demonstrate
this if-then hypothesis with a very strong degree of confidence, then you would be hailed as one of the greatest minds in history.
How about this: profit is the interest earned from the proceeds of production.
Some people believe that profit earned from the proceeds of production is exploitation
. The contention is that capitalists do not pay the full
product of labor input as a factor of production. Fundamentally, this is socialism's economic argument against capitalism. As it goes, it is
incorrect. The spread value for labor & all other factors of production are less than the market value of the end product (what conusmers buy). In
other words, consumers aren't buying units of labor that went into producing a calculator, nor individual electronic components, casing & etc. It's
Fact is the market value spread for the factors of production is less than market value price of the end product--at least for a business that wants
to sell its product(s). Fact is that the market value spread determines the wage-rate of laborers. Socialists ought to critique consumers rather than
capitalists. It's that simple.
To be clear I have no objection to voluntary socialism & I do not endorse the pervasive cronyism that exists in modern capitalist societies. I
advocate for an unhampered market--one where government does not intervene. Whatever economic order develops from an unhampered market is the only one
that I (and this is my departure from economic evaluation) believe is ethically warranted.
edit on 10-3-2013 by Kovenov because: there to their
edit on 10-3-2013 by Kovenov because: by to buy