Originator of a THESIS on money’s incapacity

[Dave B]

iHello Steve francisco I am bit reluctant to post on a thread when a principal participant can’t respond. Even if they were engaged in constant repetition with contradiction; and refusal to engage in and ignoring the counter arguments. We or I had a similar debate on value in communism etc. But at least the people who disagreed with me engaged with my argument and I with theirs I think. Discussing value and surplus value in communism with no exchange and free access premised on one class only and collective democratic production with voluntary labour etc. Like Karl and Fred did? Is qualitatively different from the perspective/ premise that of the selfish I for myself ‘bourgeois limitations’. Which invariably involves and is based on the jealous exchange of value or labour time. I think Prakash is a fraud or very stupid has he clearly wasn’t prepared for the Gotha Programme quote which is widely known and discussed. He also could have used the infamous volume II quotation if he knew of it? Karl didn’t like labour the vouchers argument as with  ……..Now, it might be thought that the issue of time-chits overcomes all these difficulties. (The existence of the time-chit naturally already presupposes conditions which are not directly given…………   https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch03.htm The ‘bank’ here, I think,  is like giant mono one stop store of communal goods which buys products from producers, which may be individuals or co-operative producers with labour chits or vouchers and sells back to them the products of other individuals or  co-operative producers. Even the infamous gobshite and fraud Mandel understood the final stage of from each according to ability and to each according to need and its later historical context etc. Ernest MandelCommunism(1990)  Marx, Engels, Lenin and their main disciples and co-thinkers like Rosa Luxemburg, Trotsky, Gramsci, Otto Bauer, Rudolf Hilferding, Bukharin et al. – incidentally also Stalin until 1928 – distinguished successive stages of the communist society: the lower stage, generally called ‘socialism’, in which there would be neither commodity production nor classes, but in which the individual’s access to the consumption fund would still be strictly measured by his quantitative labour input, evaluated in hours of labour; and a higher stage, generally called ‘communism’, in which the principle of satisfaction of needs for everyone would apply, independently of any exact measurement of work performed. Marx established that basic difference between the two stages of communism in his Critique of the Gotha Programme, together with so much else. It was also elaborated at length in Lenin’s State and Revolution.    https://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/19xx/xx/communism.htm We and I or course think the transition stage thing sucks but at least we share common ground with most self described Marxists about the ultimate aim or end of economic evolution. Or return to the beginning if we take the 1844 Karl thing on self estranged human essence. It was just beginning to get interesting as well and I was starting to warm up.

[Anonymous]

@Marcos or/and onyone else interested. 

Marcos wrote:

Economic exploitation takes place at the point of production, and added value is added at the point of production. There is no such thing as double exploitation, like one at the point of production, and another one at the point of sale

 I'll show you how to exploit at the point of sale. It's actually impossible not to exploit at the point of sale if the sale is made in capital dollars than it is a regressive price that systematically explioits poor people and systematically enriches rich people. Here's a simple thought experiment to show how. Consider this multiple choice price and profits voting survey as a numerical example of what I propose. Notice that in choices A-C, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In price and profit choices D-F the level of explotation is much less don't you agree? Assume for help understanding the econmics of this that this is a monopoly market with only one seller and 3 purchasers and 3 bags of groceries. Imagine an economic thought experiment with only one grocer who has 3 bags of groceries all the same to sell to only 3 people. 1 person makes $10/hr, 1@$50/hr, and 1@$200/hr. In this thought experiment, the grocery basket is worth over 10 hours of effort in value to everyone equally. 10+ hours of value includes 1hr@120% quality time cooking6hr@100% consumption sustenance eating time3hr@150% enjoyment time dining or as a result after eating1hr@50% shopping effort time+0.5hr added to your life expectancyHow much should the seller charge for the Grocery Basket in a free market to make the most profit or/and offer the most customer benefit? A) “$100”- Sell the market basket at $100. Low income pricing1@$200/hr works 0.5 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 9.5 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 2 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 8 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $300 = 1@$100 +1@$100 + 1@$100.Increase to inequality = 9.5 hours = (8hr – 0hr) + (9.5hr – 8hr) “$500”- Sell the market basket at “$500”. Standard pricing1@$200/hr works 4 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 6 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 50 hours to pay for the market basket and makes -40 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $1,000 = 1@$500 +1@$500 + 1@$0 (no sale).Increase to inequality = 46 hours = (6hr – 0hr) + (0hr – -40hr)C) “$2000”- Sell the market basket at “$2,000”. Luxury pricing1@$200/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 40 hours to pay for the market basket and makes -30 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 200 hours to pay for the market basket and makes -190 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $2,000 = 1@$2,000 +1@$0 + 1@$0.Increase to inequality = 190 hours = (-190hr – -30hr) + (-30hr – 0hr)D) “10hr”- Reduce inequality to Zero by charging  "10 hours of time” and make the most profit1@$200/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $2,600 = 1@$2,000 +1@$500 + 1@$100.Increase to inequality = 0 hours = (0hr – 0hr) + (0hr – 0hr)E) “5hr”- Be generous and split the profit in half. Charge "5 hours of time” for the 10 hour value1@$200/hr works 5 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 5 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 5 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 5 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 5 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 5 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $1,300 = 1@$1,000 +1@$250 + 1@$50.Increase to inequality = 0 hours = (5hr – 5hr) + (5hr – 5hr)F) “3hr”- Be altruistic and grow fastest. Charge "3 hours of time” for the 10 hour value1@$200/hr works 3 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 7 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 3 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 7 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 3 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 7 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $780 = 1@$600 +1@$150 + 1@$30.Increase to inequality = 0 hours = (7hr – 7hr) + (7hr – 7hr)  

---

 Also, notice this thought experiments requires an unequal society with salary differentials into order to make a profit for the seller and to product inequality in options A-C. In options D-F it does not matter if the labor rate is unequal because the labor rate is adjusted for in the purchase price on a per person individual exchange rate between hours and dollars. and in an equal society where all people make the same hourly salary then there would be no additional exploitation. BUT we don't live in a capitalist society where everyone makes the same hourly rate, so there definitely is addiltional double exploitation at the point of sale. IMPORTANT! This is not the same as "labor chits" or other past experments because those all used an average hourly rate for everyone and a boss who made more money also would get more labor chits. By using "hours of your personal time" as a measure of value, you end up with everyone having exactly the same buying power in "hours of your personal time regardless of whether their labor rate is high or low in $/hr. This works different than labor chits. If you think this is like labor chips, then your are right that it's superficially similar, but you are wrong if you think the results at scale of this are the same as the results and failure modes demonstrated by labo chit experiments. P.s. This multiple choice question is one I'm asking a real capitalist COO of an online grocery delivery store business.  I think the seller will be interested because of the higher profits in options D-F.  I want to buy things using the prices in options D-F because I personally would save money in options D-F too.  I think I'll be expoited less if I buy groceries with one of those D-F options.  Which choice would you prefer A-F?     

[Anonymous]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

@Marcos or/and onyone else interested. 

Marcos wrote:

Economic exploitation takes place at the point of production, and added value is added at the point of production. There is no such thing as double exploitation, like one at the point of production, and another one at the point of sale

 I'll show you how to exploit at the point of sale. It's actually impossible not to exploit at the point of sale if the sale is made in capital dollars than it is a regressive price that systematically explioits poor people and systematically enriches rich people. Here's a simple thought experiment to show how. Consider this multiple choice price and profits voting survey as a numerical example of what I propose. Notice that in choices A-C, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In price and profit choices D-F the level of explotation is much less don't you agree? Assume for help understanding the econmics of this that this is a monopoly market with only one seller and 3 purchasers and 3 bags of groceries. Imagine an economic thought experiment with only one grocer who has 3 bags of groceries all the same to sell to only 3 people. 1 person makes $10/hr, 1@$50/hr, and 1@$200/hr. In this thought experiment, the grocery basket is worth over 10 hours of effort in value to everyone equally. 10+ hours of value includes 1hr@120% quality time cooking6hr@100% consumption sustenance eating time3hr@150% enjoyment time dining or as a result after eating1hr@50% shopping effort time+0.5hr added to your life expectancyHow much should the seller charge for the Grocery Basket in a free market to make the most profit or/and offer the most customer benefit? A) “$100”- Sell the market basket at $100. Low income pricing1@$200/hr works 0.5 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 9.5 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 2 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 8 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $300 = 1@$100 +1@$100 + 1@$100.Increase to inequality = 9.5 hours = (8hr – 0hr) + (9.5hr – 8hr) “$500”- Sell the market basket at “$500”. Standard pricing1@$200/hr works 4 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 6 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 50 hours to pay for the market basket and makes -40 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $1,000 = 1@$500 +1@$500 + 1@$0 (no sale).Increase to inequality = 46 hours = (6hr – 0hr) + (0hr – -40hr)C) “$2000”- Sell the market basket at “$2,000”. Luxury pricing1@$200/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 40 hours to pay for the market basket and makes -30 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 200 hours to pay for the market basket and makes -190 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $2,000 = 1@$2,000 +1@$0 + 1@$0.Increase to inequality = 190 hours = (-190hr – -30hr) + (-30hr – 0hr)D) “10hr”- Reduce inequality to Zero by charging  "10 hours of time” and make the most profit1@$200/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $2,600 = 1@$2,000 +1@$500 + 1@$100.Increase to inequality = 0 hours = (0hr – 0hr) + (0hr – 0hr)E) “5hr”- Be generous and split the profit in half. Charge "5 hours of time” for the 10 hour value1@$200/hr works 5 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 5 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 5 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 5 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 5 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 5 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $1,300 = 1@$1,000 +1@$250 + 1@$50.Increase to inequality = 0 hours = (5hr – 5hr) + (5hr – 5hr)F) “3hr”- Be altruistic and grow fastest. Charge "3 hours of time” for the 10 hour value1@$200/hr works 3 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 7 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 3 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 7 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 3 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 7 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $780 = 1@$600 +1@$150 + 1@$30.Increase to inequality = 0 hours = (7hr – 7hr) + (7hr – 7hr)  

---

 Also, notice this thought experiments requires an unequal society with salary differentials into order to make a profit for the seller and to product inequality in options A-C. In options D-F it does not matter if the labor rate is unequal because the labor rate is adjusted for in the purchase price on a per person individual exchange rate between hours and dollars. and in an equal society where all people make the same hourly salary then there would be no additional exploitation. BUT we don't live in a capitalist society where everyone makes the same hourly rate, so there definitely is addiltional double exploitation at the point of sale. IMPORTANT! This is not the same as "labor chits" or other past experments because those all used an average hourly rate for everyone and a boss who made more money also would get more labor chits. By using "hours of your personal time" as a measure of value, you end up with everyone having exactly the same buying power in "hours of your personal time regardless of whether their labor rate is high or low in $/hr. This works different than labor chits. If you think this is like labor chips, then your are right that it's superficially similar, but you are wrong if you think the results at scale of this are the same as the results and failure modes demonstrated by labo chit experiments. P.s. This multiple choice question is one I'm asking a real capitalist COO of an online grocery delivery store business.  I think the seller will be interested because of the higher profits in options D-F.  I want to buy things using the prices in options D-F because I personally would save money on options D-F too.  I think I'll be exploited less if I buy groceries with one of those D-F options.  Which choice would you prefer A-F?     

1) I am limiting my post to one every month starting today. I don't want to over post2) What you have written, can it be considered as UNPAID LABOR?  Can a husband exploit his wife at home?  Is he a capitalist? Is a pimp a capitalist? Probably,  you will do it better as a salesman, or business manager,  but no as an Economist.There is a new term created by the leftwinger known as Superexploitation mostly applied to women, and also applied to deforestation. The first one means that women are double exploited and man is exploited once, therefore, women produce more unpaid labour than man, Is that true, or both produce unpaid labour? Are we exploited according to our sex ? Lenin also said that peoples from the colonies were more exploited than the workers from the metropolis, economically, was that possible? Who produced more unpaid labour?  

[Dave B]

iI am sorry Steve But you post looks too complicated for me to trawl through. Marcos is correct after a fashion Obviously merchants make a profit but it doesn’t mean necessarily they are exploiting workers. According to Marx; and he dedicated big chapters on it  in volume III. The manufacturing capitalist class will make stuff which say costs them $50 but which has a labour time value of say $100. The exploitation has happened there. Manufacturing capitalist class will however have to sell it $100 product to the capitalist supermarkets for $90. Who will sell it a $100. Thus they make $10 profit on the sale. $10 profit on the sale remains however a slice of manufacturing capitalist class surplus value; generated at the point of production. The supermarket profit or rate of profit has to be normal. The supermarkets have ‘non-working’ capital as a permanent stock, albeit rolling over, of commodities As well as buildings and sales infrastructure. The obvious problem of supermarket workers and the variable capital of the merchant capitalists is a bit difficult. Or in other words do they add or create value out of which the merchant capitalist class can take a cut. Or in other words do supermarkets workers produce something socially useful, albeit possibly abstract as a service?  The answer to the question would workers still be doing some of that in free access communism. Clearly workers wouldn’t be scurrying around all over the place picking stuff up from factory gates.  However! It is possible for the merchants to act as the de-facto ‘disguised’ employers of workers. Who may have a nominal employer (or not) but who in reality may actually just be supervising the work. Or as with small farmers say eg dairy they could be essentially making stuff for the supermarkets who are in essence their indirect employers and exploiters Thus; Capital Vol. III Part IVConversion of Commodity-Capital and Money-Capital into Commercial Capital and Money-Dealing Capital (Merchant's Capital)Chapter 20. Historical Facts about Merchant's Capital  This system presents everywhere an obstacle to the real capitalist mode of production and goes under with its development. Without revolutionising the mode of production, it only worsens the condition of the direct producers, turns them into mere wage-workers and proletarians under conditions worse than those under the immediate control of capital, and appropriates their surplus-labour on the basis of the old mode of production. The same conditions exist in somewhat modified form in part of the London handicraft furniture industry. It is practised notably in the Tower Hamlets on a very large scale. The whole production is divided into very numerous separate branches of business independent of one another. One establishment makes only chairs, another only tables, a third only bureaus, etc. But these establishments themselves are run more or less like handicrafts by a single minor master and a few journeymen. Nevertheless, production is too large to work directly for private persons. The buyers are the owners of furniture stores. On Saturdays the master visits them and sells his product, the transaction being closed with as much haggling as in a pawnshop over a loan. The masters depend on this weekly sale, if for no other reason than to be able to buy raw materials for the following week and to pay out wages. Under these circumstances, they are really only middlemen between the merchant and their own labourers. The merchant is the actual capitalist who pockets the lion's share of the surplus-value.[9] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch20.htm 

[Bijou Drains]

Marcos wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

@Marcos or/and onyone else interested. 

Marcos wrote:

Economic exploitation takes place at the point of production, and added value is added at the point of production. There is no such thing as double exploitation, like one at the point of production, and another one at the point of sale

 I'll show you how to exploit at the point of sale. It's actually impossible not to exploit at the point of sale if the sale is made in capital dollars than it is a regressive price that systematically explioits poor people and systematically enriches rich people. Here's a simple thought experiment to show how. Consider this multiple choice price and profits voting survey as a numerical example of what I propose. Notice that in choices A-C, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In price and profit choices D-F the level of explotation is much less don't you agree? Assume for help understanding the econmics of this that this is a monopoly market with only one seller and 3 purchasers and 3 bags of groceries. Imagine an economic thought experiment with only one grocer who has 3 bags of groceries all the same to sell to only 3 people. 1 person makes $10/hr, 1@$50/hr, and 1@$200/hr. In this thought experiment, the grocery basket is worth over 10 hours of effort in value to everyone equally. 10+ hours of value includes 1hr@120% quality time cooking6hr@100% consumption sustenance eating time3hr@150% enjoyment time dining or as a result after eating1hr@50% shopping effort time+0.5hr added to your life expectancyHow much should the seller charge for the Grocery Basket in a free market to make the most profit or/and offer the most customer benefit? A) “$100”- Sell the market basket at $100. Low income pricing1@$200/hr works 0.5 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 9.5 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 2 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 8 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $300 = 1@$100 +1@$100 + 1@$100.Increase to inequality = 9.5 hours = (8hr – 0hr) + (9.5hr – 8hr) “$500”- Sell the market basket at “$500”. Standard pricing1@$200/hr works 4 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 6 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 50 hours to pay for the market basket and makes -40 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $1,000 = 1@$500 +1@$500 + 1@$0 (no sale).Increase to inequality = 46 hours = (6hr – 0hr) + (0hr – -40hr)C) “$2000”- Sell the market basket at “$2,000”. Luxury pricing1@$200/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 40 hours to pay for the market basket and makes -30 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 200 hours to pay for the market basket and makes -190 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $2,000 = 1@$2,000 +1@$0 + 1@$0.Increase to inequality = 190 hours = (-190hr – -30hr) + (-30hr – 0hr)D) “10hr”- Reduce inequality to Zero by charging  "10 hours of time” and make the most profit1@$200/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 10 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 0 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $2,600 = 1@$2,000 +1@$500 + 1@$100.Increase to inequality = 0 hours = (0hr – 0hr) + (0hr – 0hr)E) “5hr”- Be generous and split the profit in half. Charge "5 hours of time” for the 10 hour value1@$200/hr works 5 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 5 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 5 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 5 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 5 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 5 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $1,300 = 1@$1,000 +1@$250 + 1@$50.Increase to inequality = 0 hours = (5hr – 5hr) + (5hr – 5hr)F) “3hr”- Be altruistic and grow fastest. Charge "3 hours of time” for the 10 hour value1@$200/hr works 3 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 7 hours profit. 1@$50/hr works 3 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 7 hours profit.1@$10/hr works 3 hours to pay for the market basket and makes 7 hours profit.Sellers Profit = $780 = 1@$600 +1@$150 + 1@$30.Increase to inequality = 0 hours = (7hr – 7hr) + (7hr – 7hr)  

---

 Also, notice this thought experiments requires an unequal society with salary differentials into order to make a profit for the seller and to product inequality in options A-C. In options D-F it does not matter if the labor rate is unequal because the labor rate is adjusted for in the purchase price on a per person individual exchange rate between hours and dollars. and in an equal society where all people make the same hourly salary then there would be no additional exploitation. BUT we don't live in a capitalist society where everyone makes the same hourly rate, so there definitely is addiltional double exploitation at the point of sale. IMPORTANT! This is not the same as "labor chits" or other past experments because those all used an average hourly rate for everyone and a boss who made more money also would get more labor chits. By using "hours of your personal time" as a measure of value, you end up with everyone having exactly the same buying power in "hours of your personal time regardless of whether their labor rate is high or low in $/hr. This works different than labor chits. If you think this is like labor chips, then your are right that it's superficially similar, but you are wrong if you think the results at scale of this are the same as the results and failure modes demonstrated by labo chit experiments. P.s. This multiple choice question is one I'm asking a real capitalist COO of an online grocery delivery store business.  I think the seller will be interested because of the higher profits in options D-F.  I want to buy things using the prices in options D-F because I personally would save money on options D-F too.  I think I'll be exploited less if I buy groceries with one of those D-F options.  Which choice would you prefer A-F?     

1) I am limiting my post to one every month starting today. I don't want to over post

From my point of view I enjoy your posts and I think the idea that you might over post makes no sense to me. I woudl prefer to regularly read your posts as they are really good at putting the Socialist case. More power to your elbow!

[PJShannon]

Marcos wrote:

1) I am limiting my post to one every month starting today. I don't want to over post

Bijou Drains wrote:

From my point of view I enjoy your posts and I think the idea that you might over post makes no sense to me. I woudl prefer to regularly read your posts as they are really good at putting the Socialist case. More power to your elbow!

Me too.

[Anonymous]

admin wrote:

Marcos wrote:

1) I am limiting my post to one every month starting today. I don't want to over post

Bijou Drains wrote:

From my point of view I enjoy your posts and I think the idea that you might over post makes no sense to me. I woudl prefer to regularly read your posts as they are really good at putting the Socialist case. More power to your elbow!

Me too.

ditto

[Author]

Posts