Worker Surplus is not real

Individual decisions don't matter, the market will decide if the price is viable or not.

Yes but if it weren't for the Individual's decision, the market price wouldn't change.

Value and price are different things.

kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/value-and-price-qa/
Keep in mind that Capital was written for 19th century German academics, so the terminology can be a bit convoluted.

Stop thinking in absolute terms. The value is decided individually for each purchase of a commodity and is only realized during the purchase, not at any point before that.
Price is just whatever the seller decides it to be, this decision is however influenced by socially necessary labor time (SNL). SNL dictates how efficient your production process has to be. If a different factory is more efficient at creating commodities, then they can sell it at a lower price, and take away your potential costumers. Competition increases efficiency and makes it possible to set a lower SNL, this means you can attract more customers with a lower price than what your competitors sell at, while still making a profit. It is, however, possible to be more efficient while not changing the SNL. You make more commodities because you are more efficient, if whatever you sell is high in demand, you could possibly still sell all your extra commodities and make a super-profit (profit made in exchange as opposed to the profit made in the production process). If factory owners and commodity sellers make agreements to not lower SNL, even if efficiency increases, then they can all gain from this decision. However, this would mean that everyone in a sector of production would work together, which is unlikely.

Figure the rest out yourself

The worker who keeps the books, retard. What do you think shareholders DO?
Spoiler alert: they sit around and collect money, and occasionally replace a member of the board of directors.
Replace the board of directors with a workers council that has the same duties (pick managers to run the company in the way most beneficial for the workers, rather than for third party investors) and there you go. No exploitation.

We're not talking about getting rid of managers and administrators here. Just the investor class that doesn't actually do anything but put cash in and take cash out.

I doesn't matter how much time you put into a product. If no one wants it, its worthless

So if I buy materials that cost $7. Pay a worker $5 to put the materials together. Since the worker took 1 hour to make the product, i'm going to charge $10 for the product?????

I just lost two dollars. What kind of a business practice is that?

Georgist Logic: A passive landlord is a parasite.
If rent is unearned, that begs the question.
What if the landlord had not offered the land on the market?
If that had been the case the people using that space would not have benefited from the service.
But these people didn't create this benefit, the land owner did so by making the offer.
Since the owner is the owner, the owner owns what he owns by owning it (through ownership*).
*Source: Read a book, ohmygawd y'all are so ignorant.

EVER THOUGHT ABOUT THE HARDWORKING LANDLORD, YOU CUNTS!?!

Whos order does the "worker who keeps the books" follow. They don't have the finally say in the manner.

Only those who received instructions from God have any value. Therefore LA flooding is Good.

Landlording* apologies. Fun post hing

Jesus fucking Christ - THE WORKERS COUNCIL YOU MORON

That's not at all how Marx talked about it. You are cooking up your own definition and then you wonder why others comes to different conclusions than you.

Seems like you understand basic math. Let me spell it out for you because you seem retarded.
1. SNL is set by whatever the most efficient production process is.
2. If you can't emulate this process you will be less efficient.
3. Because you are less efficient your production cost is higher than that of other factories.
4. Therefore you can't sell at the same price as others without losing money.

Yes, if that Landlord didn't offer the anyone to stay at his place, no one would have stayed there.

What are squatters?

Maybe I remember incorrectly, then tell me how he defined.

They don't hold the full authority over the price. It the company's Owners. If the owners wants the price to be $20 then he will get $20 if not, the workers council are fired and replaced.

You don't misremember, you aren't familiar with Marx at all and talk out of your ass. Are you Rebel?

If you're if the concern is the production cost. Then you're not really worried about the time it went into making the products. But how many products you can make within a certain amount of time. Which is no different than Supply. Which is part of the Supply and Demand theory.
That determines the price.

The SNL is meaningless.

If the space is owned, they are trespassing.
If the land is not own, then no one has the right to dictate on how its used.

but time was still invested into the making of the product. If no one wants to buy it on the market that just means there isn't demand for the product not that it has no value.

The workers are the owners in this example, you goddamn illiterate.

...

If no one wants it, it was a waste OF time

...

Sounds about right to me.

Probably head of sales, another person employed by the owner.

Production cost for the same quantity of commodities you idiot. This is why I hate explaining this shit, when people can't read more than 4 sentences.

All ownership comes from someone unilaterally declaring that they have the right to decide how unowned land is used

If that's the case then that's totally different from WHAT I POSTED.

So exchange-value isn't value, and exchange value isn't the amount which was exchanged for a commodity during the C-M or C-C process?

No, the shareholder is
The salesman
The market
The workers
No shareholders.

Production cost for the same quantity of commodities
and
Production cost for Supply is the same thing.

SNL is bullshit

Read Stirner and/or kys.

Who has the final say on the price? Its the Owners. If the Shareholder own part of the company they are responsible for its Marketed Price.

Just because the market declares what the price should be, doesn't mean the owners have to follow it, its there decision.

then you are in debt to every newborn child.

That's literally how bitcoin mining works.

I am aware that I have a moral duty to each of my fellow humans.

Again, the shareholders only exist to leech off of the workers by the threat of deprivation. They should not exist, which is exactly the point of this entire conversation.

The LTV is a theory of aggregates, not of individual interactions.
Mudpie argument, which has never been true because simple labor time is confused with SNLT in it. In fact, let me take this as an opportunity to explain SNLT and prices to you:
1)Our first intuition upon the notion of how prices are formed in the context of the diamond and water paradox is that the diamonds are harder to fetch than water and therefore obtain a higher price on the market.
This is clearly wrong because then the mudpie argument would be true.
2) Perhaps price is based on supply and demand and "homo economicus" maximizing utility as taught in schools.
In this case, however, why does it matter if the workers go on strike? Clearly, labor plays some sort of aggregated role in determining price, a role which is covered up by replacing it with "utility" and "desire". It clearly removes context for the sake of extreme abstraction approaching pure logic (but useless).
3) Price can only be based in the aggregate in the cost of buying all the necessary matter and stored energy to actively transform said matter into a useful form which goes for the lowest average price on the market as firms drop out. This, in turn, determines how much revenue is made by the firm as a whole, and how revenue is made subtracted from the part which goes to the replenishment of the stored energy (labor) is your profit (the "tending towards 0 profit" thing is a myth - business owners will pay things out of pocket all the time). This also finds applicability to the shareholder model where model #2 fails (see Cockshott's "Classical Econophysics") due to being generalized beyond the market to the historical trajectory of human society and its dance with value production as a really-existing social phenomenon.

I always found it so strange when I was first introduced to classical economics (and their critique) that the best arguments against the market are those which have the strictest expectations of performance. When further thought of in light of the market's historical tendencies, however, it makes perfect sense - as capital whittles itself down to increases its ability to be reinvested in itself and grow through the consumption of further living labor, it's only reasonable that the long-term tendency would be for the unproductive elements to be culled and, even if it's never perfectly efficient at any one point, be able to be treated as if it is so because it's a moving process, a pattern of continually approaching and never quite reaching perfection. Even if Post-Keynesianism's frameworkless critiques of its inefficiencies and ultra-efficient horrors are empirically correct, they are worthless and mutable in the larger scheme of things.

Should babies be entrepreneurial and pull themselves up by the bootstraps?

Then it was a waste of time making it.

Imagine if - just imagine if - the workers owned the factories, and if they needed a product they could go in and make it - otherwise, they don't make it.

Furthermore, "Owners are rewarded for risk" is literally more of a gamble than gambling, it's taking pride in capitalism as a casino-economy. You can't (really) calculate sales prospects down the way you can calculate the roll of a dice. There's no magic that the owner adds here except his own extant capital - in many ways the owner is as much a victim of the system of capitalism as the worker, despite his exploitative role over the worker - because capital itself makes him it's puppet.

Me.

Labor is the only thing that entitles you to wealth and property. Capital is a pure abstraction who's sole purpose is too provide an excuse for people to "own" the means of production based on an arbitrary definition of property and therefore take the profit rightfully earned by labor and place it in the hands of an economic aristocracy who contribute nothing real to society and who's hegemony is legitimized by threat state violence.

At the e d of the day, the investor class's risk is simple… They risk becoming a worker once they've lost their money.

But what does a worker risk?
Injury, illness, death, missing out on time with family, the satisfaction of day to day life without capitalism cracking the whip. Some of these are nearly guaranteed, others are merely possible, but they are all risks undertaken by the worker than are not undertaken by the owner unless the owner loses all his money first.

That's literally the position of the landlord.

What if I told you that the land that the landlord "offers" had existed in a time before the landlord was even born and that it will exist after his death as well?

It's a little more than that… It's "I exist and I have a piece of paper that lets me call in men with guns to stop you from using a real, physical thing that I'm not currently using."

Which… Isn't actually better at all.

That is because supply and demand theory conflates prices with supply and demand, something which classical economics doesn't. This is not a question of SNL being bullshit, it is a question of you believing S&D to be the true model

...

Hmmm

fun fact: the creator of this comic is a hardcore TERF

blog.ninapaley.com/2017/03/22/the-terfening-online-silencing-campaign/

no opinion on this, just stating the fact

That is one of the less crazy thing on that site. Bitch is insane.

jesus christ that woman is fucked in the head.

she'd rather have transwomen and other gender-non-conforming people be raped than be allowed to use her precious "female" spaces. What a radical!

wow the top comment on there is awesome!

March 22, 2017 at 12:19 pm

Welcome to the brave new world where the alt-center rules by silencing criticism. My take on bathrooms is it’s practical to let people pee where they want to, but either there are so many genders that it’s ridiculous to say a person whose sex and gender are female is the same as a person whose sex is male and gender is not, or it’s time to say gender theory was useful when it began in the 1950s, but now it’s as relevant as abolitionism. In any case, I’m sorry you were silenced.

No, they should primarily be seen as the obligee of their parents.

Example:
You have 0$
You have a friend thats has $1
Your friend gives you the dollar
You spend that dollar on a product
You sell the product on the market
You get a $3 from selling it
You give your friend back $1.25 and you keep the 1.75.
You profited $1.75 off your friends money and you pay him an extra $0.25 as a way of saying "thank for letting me use your money"

If you're friend had not compensated you, then you wouldn't have grown in business. Therefore anything you pay him back in is justified.

Shareholders are just people who fund companies and get rewards for doing so.
But of course not all business provide dividends back.

Welcome to the Stock Market

Read the part called explotation in the second chapter of a book called "Towards a new socialism"(search for it is free on pdf)
It gives a prefect explanation on how the surplus value is extracted for the workers, with data and demostrating it matemathically.

But that's not how capitalism works. Capitalism works by denying people the opportunity to work unless they have enough money to get started. Then the workers have two options, they either directly work for someone else and their labor is exploited, or they borrow money to get started and pay back the lender, thus indirectly having their labor exploited.

Even those who own their own means of production outright and are self employed had to get the startup money from somewhere, and most have either gotten that money from working for someone else or from a loan which h has since been paid off.

Nice example, now here's how the real world works:

best I can do

Thanks famalam

Reminder that TERFS are absolute trash

Use the screencap function.

Now let's look at how the stock market actually works:
You have $0
A slimeball has $0
The bank has $0
The slimeball asks the bank for $1000
The bank creates $1000
The slimeball gives you $1000 and you give him some paper
Another slimeball wants the paper
He goes to the bank and asks for $1500
The bank creates $1500
He gives the other slimeball $1500, the first slimeball pays back his $1000 and gets $500 profit.
About a billion slimeballs see the share price rocketing and all ask the bank for lots of money and the bank creates a huge amount of money and debt until eventually individual shares are selling for far more than the productive value of the company itself at which point the slimeballs start to buy shares more slowly and the price stops climbing, at which point everyone panics and tries to dump them as soon as possible causing the value to crash. Since some very naughty people were hiding this outright gambling inside investment-packages that looked safe, even the less slimey slimeballs suddenly find themselves in a lot of trouble. Hundreds of thousands of people are in a lot of debt that they'll probably never repay, and the bank is afraid to lend anyone money because of this.

You have $0 again.
Nobody wants to give you money even though your business model is sound and proven.
You go to the bank
The bank refuses to create money for you.
Your productive enterprise goes out of business because of the actions of slimeballs playing fucking Casino.

Except it's not just you, it's nearly everyone. The government refuses to compensate anyone except for the banks and has been cutting unemployment payments for years. The economy remains stagnant for over a decade. Incomes which were stagnant for three decades starts to fall. In desperation, they send in the clowns.

Welcome to post-fordism. Buy an exit bag before it becomes an object of speculation.