Subject: Re: owned vs. free market From: Robert Marlow <bobstopper-AT-australispro.com.au> Date: 14 Jul 2003 10:24:03 +0800 On Sat, 2003-07-12 at 02:30, Joacim Persson wrote: > > > > The > > > > lie of capitalism is that it argues that merely owning capital is in > > > > some way productive and requires some kind of reward. The capitalist who > > And since machines costs to build (apart from energy and maintenance costs > during operation), whoever built it have been or shall be payed for that. > Normally they demand (quite rightly so) to be payed for that work > regardless if the machine they built is useful or not, and regardless if it > actually is used or not. It may not work well, it may not pay off, it may > be lost in a fire etc. There is a risk involved in building any stuff, > particulary new inventions. That's why it's called venture capital. The > purpose of interest on capital is to spread that risk. Alternatively, the > ones building the machine could receive payment according to how the > machine actually pays off, but not everyone is willing to get involved in > taking risks, or not getting payed until (years) later. Why do capitalists always fall back to the risk argument? Are you all gamblers at heart and think that somehow spinning a roulet table is productive and warrants the reward received? I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. So a capitalist leeches a bunch of worker's wealth and then blows it all on good or bad investments... are the workers all supposed to praise their fearless capitalist leader for using their wealth in such a way without consulting the rightful owners? If the workers organised themselves and kept their produce they could and would make such decisions on their own. There's no need for some third party capitalist party appropriating the workers' wealth for themselves as reward for wishy-washy reasons like "risk taking". > But actually, I was primarily thinking of energy costs. Then the fact remains - the capitalist expends no productive energy through "ownership" and deserves a similar reward. The workers built the machines, the workers justify being rewarded for their efforts, not some schmoe who "risked" by fronting some excess dirty money. > > A fair wage is easy to assess simply through analysis of the process of > > production: a fair wage is full return for the produce. > > No more, no less? Most employees would be dissapointed, to say the least. That doesn't make sense at all. If most employees received more than what they produce then either they're receiving a tiny bit more and the remaining minority of workers are receiving practically none of their fair share or the majority of employers are making a constant loss to upkeep their employees wages. -- Regards, Robert Marlow
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005