quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Except it, value, is not based on labor. It is based on what the market will bring for a price.

You are making the foundational argument on behalf of Marxism. It is why Capital’s use of labor is exploitive and stealing from labor.

It is well and good that value for the commodity is determined by the marketplace. I am only saying that value was produced by the worker and, whatever he gets from his effort, he has earned. Call that Marxist if you like.
The fact is, Capital does exploit labor, but labor requires capital to realize value as well. The relationship is symbiotic, with one side providing the opportunity for the other side to produce the value.
In my case, I invest the capital, I provide the labor, and I produce the value. Of course, on my other job, I invest the capital, provide the labor, then sell recreation opportunities to the tourists. Nothing too productive there, but I'll take it. Regards, Bill.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
They aren't worried about our country.....just themselves.....

. . . you realize I hope that you just described the Orange Messiah perfectly.

Not even close my friend.

The status quo has to change......I am thinking about future generations.... Not all me, me, me......

It is time for free trade.....free trade means equal trade....I'm tired of the rest of the world living on my tax dollars!

I'm tired of borrowing from China to pay for European largess, Canadian largess as well....

If I have to make one less trip a year to Africa to make sure future generations can make their own trips, well, I'm sure ill be fine.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
Anyone here think we’re going to fix a 1.8 trillion dollar deficit without at least tightening our belts? Even if we went about it the way you think it should be done, across the board. You think we get out of this nothing sacrificed?

Will you farmers be tightening your belts, or will you be expecting government bailouts like last time Trump imposed tariffs?

All the people losing their jobs and being bullied at work don't get handouts from government.

The people who have lost big portions of their retirement funds aren't getting bailouts either.

Dip stick! The farmers and ranchers are tickled....and have the most to gain!

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Except it, value, is not based on labor. It is based on what the market will bring for a price.

You are making the foundational argument on behalf of Marxism. It is why Capital’s use of labor is exploitive and stealing from labor.

You are an under intelligent over educated isiot!

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Except it, value, is not based on labor. It is based on what the market will bring for a price.

You are making the foundational argument on behalf of Marxism. It is why Capital’s use of labor is exploitive and stealing from labor.

You are an under intelligent over educated isiot!

wait a little and we can see the future and you crying the money vanished ...

Jtex: You are not ignorant. You ate just stupid. An ignorant person is unlearned on a subject.

You have been given the tools to become educated and refuse.

The The Labor Theory of Value is exactly what BL is proposing . It is the argument made by Marx wrote. Other socialist tool up the cause as well. Go read.

The fact is you agree with Marx on this issue. That hurts your feelings since you like to run around and call people communist wo knowing you support the founding principle. Like BK, his argument is wanting. Marxism is founded on the ideals BL has expressed. It is the Labor Value Theory to the letter. Likewise, such thinking is the intellectual basis for arguing capital exploits and steals from labor.

That is not a debate. That is a historical fact about Marxism. The truth hurts when you do not like to think or get upset at complex ideas.

Marx said: “A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labor in the abstract had been embodied or materialized in it.”

Go read Marx. Go read Hitler (an ex socialist) use Labor Value Theory.

You will not because you are stupid. You like being stupid.

It does not matter how much you labor. It matters how much you are valued in the lure economic sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
My son noted, when he lost a significant amount of value when the markets dropped, he hadn't earned it anyway. When he built something, he earned that; the other was just something that happened. I feel much the same way. There is money you earn, and there is money you get. You can be proud of what you earn but just thankful for what you get. Regards, Bill.

That is the exact argument the Marxist made.

The Labor Theory of Value:
Marx, building upon the work of David Ricardo and other classical economists, argued that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labor time required to produce it.

In a way, that's not far off the mark. The fact is; the value of that commodity while it is based on the amount of labor put into it plus the value of raw materials, has to provide for every other person who claims a portion of that value.
Those who claim those portions may assert that they have earned it, and perhaps they have. The purse snatcher may as easily assert that he has earned his reward when he runs off with the old lady's purse. That is, of course, an unfair comparison, though I'll let it stand.
The truth is we have established an economic model which works, for the most part. It works as long as there is a balance struck between the producers and the claimers. Those who work are generally satisfied with their lot.
If I buy a piece of property and make improvements to it. I have earned any increase in value those improvements made. If the value of the property increases due to market pressure, I benefit from it, and I reap the reward. I haven't earned that, though I may like to think I have. If my property has a bunch of marketable timber on it, and I harvest and sell it, I have earned that. I bought it, I added value by cutting and hauling it and made a profit by selling it for more than I paid for it. I have earned that.
Labor isn't the only thing which gives a commodity value, but where labor is involved, it should certainly be acknowledged.
I'm certainly happy with money I get but I'm proud of money I earn. Today, as I approach old age, a lot of the money I get is in the form of pensions. I like to think I earned them but I'm also grateful to get them. Regards, Bill

Property does not always increase because you make improvements. Lots of folks have lost their shirts building on property because the market did not value the investment.

You are making the Marxist argument of Labor.

Marx said: “A use value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labor in the abstract had been embodied or materialized in it.”

Since value is supposedly created by labor, more specifically by what appears to be physical labor as embodied by the manual laborer, it was clear to Marx certain classes of individuals produced nothing of value at all. If the value of a product was the sum total of the labor put into it then how was it the entrepreneur or capitalist made a profit? For Marx the answer was easy. He clearly cannot pay the worker the full value of his labor and thus exploits workers and lives off their productivity. For Marx, the essence of capitalism was the exploitation of workers by capitalists.
Class warfare was thus inevitable as the workers sought to free themselves from the exploitation of capitalists. This meant the world was divided into two fundamental classes: those that exploit and those who are exploited — no other option could exist, said Marx, under liberal capitalism. He concluded: “In order that one class should be the class of emancipation par excellence, another class must contrariwise be the class of manifest subjugation.”


BL: You sound just like Marx, my man.

Deal with that as you see fit. There is no getting around you. You have made Marx’s argument chapter and line.

This is word for word Marx.

My son noted, when he lost a significant amount of value when the markets dropped, he hadn't earned it anyway. When he built something, he earned that; the other was just something that happened. I feel much the same way. There is money you earn, and there is money you get. You can be proud of what you earn but just thankful for what you get. Regards, Bill.

It is the logic Marx used to call for class war as a logical consequence.

If I have made Marx's argument, so be it.
The man who buys land and turns a profit when the market says it has appreciated in value, may congratulate himself on having been smart or gotten lucky (he will almost always say he was shrewd, not lucky).
The man who buys land, increases its value through work and capital investment, then sells at a profit, may congratulate himself because he earned his reward.
In either case, the profit is made, and the person is entitled to it. The rest is just in the eye of the beholder.
I'll confess that I have much more respect for the man who produces than I do for the man who has learned how to skim, though both may be considered to be successful. I mean no insult by it and I take no offense at being labeled a Marxist because I value productive effort.
Laborers, artisans, tradesmen, service providers, and professionals, all have value in my view, as long as they contribute. Meanwhile I accept that they, and I, may have to carry some on our backs. Bill

Damn! I guess Maurice Ottmar shouldn’t have charged me any more for my .338 than that 700 Remington I bought the same year!

If he was still alive I’d be asking for that extra money back now that you’ve taught me about capitalism.

It is came you pls e on it. Lots of rifles out their do nut bring the value to the next seller that it did to the first.

Of the work has venue to you, pay it. If not, you do not. If the artisan cannot find a purchasers based on a will buyer artisan has 4 options:

Stop work,
Cheapen the work,
Lower the price until someone is willing to buy. Cheapening the work may go hand in hand with this.
The fourth option is state imposed price control. That reflects a society’s mandate on the value of that labor. This is what Nazis Germany did. They were all ex-socialist.

It works the other way too. If I can build rifles or 1911s cheaper say using investment castings or mim, but charge as much as another manufacturer using milled actions/part, it is the value the buyer puts on it. My labor being less than milling does not affect value.

My Heym value is not based on labor. It is based on what I or the next person is willing to pay.

I’m sorry guys. Labor Value Theory is Marx founding ideals.

It does not mater how much labor you put into something. Labor is not the measure of value. What is the measure of value is what a willing buyer will pay for it. The market. Unless, you apply a mandate to what the value of that labor was that must be paid. Market control by the state. Marx was all about that. So was Hitler. The state working in common good would correct the imbalance between labor and price.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
If I have made Marx's argument, so be it.
The man who buys land and turns a profit when the market says it has appreciated in value, may congratulate himself on having been smart or gotten lucky (he will almost always say he was shrewd, not lucky).
The man who buys land, increases its value through work and capital investment, then sells at a profit, may congratulate himself because he earned his reward.
In either case, the profit is made, and the person is entitled to it. The rest is just in the eye of the beholder.
I'll confess that I have much more respect for the man who produces than I do for the man who has learned how to skim, though both may be considered to be successful. I mean no insult by it and I take no offense at being labeled a Marxist because I value productive effort.
Laborers, artisans, tradesmen, service providers, and professionals, all have value in my view, as long as they contribute. Meanwhile I accept that they, and I, may have to carry some on our backs. Bill

Hitler said the exact same thing. Contribute to the nation through labor while the bankers and stock jobbers, etc were not contributing and causing the economic depression of the worker. Marx said exactly the same thing. Marx and Hitler classed those you started this discussion with. Those who do not contribute as Jewish capitalism.

As you say, so be it.


Painters are a good example of this. They can spend untold hours on a work and not sell, or not at the price they want. Then, they die, taste change, and they market value adjust to where folks pay 6 figures for the work.

Same with custom rifles. The labor is secondary. What sets the value is what you, the market for custom rifles will pay for this piece.

I wrote a brief that causes a case to settle. It takes me 30 minutes. I get paid. The labor is low. I send 24 hours on a brief (done that) brief does not win. I do not get paid. The labor is irrelevant. In another capacity, I bring a case to resolution in 4 hours. I get paid X amount based on recovery. I put on 70 plus hours over a period of months, I get paid the save X. The labor is secondary. The market brings 33, 25, 20 percent depending on the type of action.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
Anyone here think we’re going to fix a 1.8 trillion dollar deficit without at least tightening our belts? Even if we went about it the way you think it should be done, across the board. You think we get out of this nothing sacrificed?

Will you farmers be tightening your belts, or will you be expecting government bailouts like last time Trump imposed tariffs?

All the people losing their jobs and being bullied at work don't get handouts from government.

The people who have lost big portions of their retirement funds aren't getting bailouts either.

Dip stick! The farmers and ranchers are tickled....and have the most to gain!

After retaliatory tariffs are imposed by the countries targeted by Trump, grain farmers should have their hands out, like last time.

Wish you the best James. I have no ill will towards you. Don’t let the internet and tds make you hate. And maybe it’s not and you’re just doing it on your own.

In an ideal world there would be no need for tariffs, and if one country imposed an import tax of 10% on golf balls why on earth would the other trading partner not do the same.

The issue you have at the moment is that trumps tariff levels are not based on reciprocal numbers to even the playing field. He’s just picking numbers out of the air.

His recent list has tariffs imposed by the EU at thirty something per cent. The world bank says they average 4%. His numbers are total rubbish. What he’s actually trying to do is remove trade imbalances with arbitrary tariffs, which is totally different.

"Earned" money is a little more stable, not subject to quite as many external influences as "get" money. My paper losses in the early phase of Trump's tariff adventure are unpleasant but buying opportunities in 2027 might make up for them. It is awhile before November 2026, possibilities are endless...