surplus labor value

And causes trade wars and real wars so most of the world opposes them. The very last thing on earth we need is a trade war with China after Republican capitalism civilized them and brought them peacefully into the world community . 1+1=2

 

Keeping it simple is good. It brings out principles that might otherwise remain hidden from average scrutiny.

Where did the money come from to amortize the business loan? -it came from production, to which all parties contributed. So who paid for the business? -all parties because all parties made it possible through work.

So logically if not legally, if the worker makes, say, 10% of what the owner makes, and the income generated by the work of all involved makes it possible to increase business net income (before any wages or salaries are paid) by 50%, then increasing everyone’s income by 50% keeps the ratio of owner’s income to worker’s income constant. The percentage relationship stays the same. And since workers and owner all contributed to the effort resulting in the increase in net income, it is logical that all benefit to the same degree (percentage).

In reality a percentage of net income could be put aside as “profit” for later use in capital expenditures and the remaining net income could be divided among workers and owner according to a set percentage. This would be logical and fair.

 

Do you mean put aside using the point of a liberal gun?? A liberal only has violent solution to problems. Why? Does a liberal want to put aside net profits as his only violent intervention or is he really a violent libcommie who has 10001 violent interventions in mind because he lacks the IQ to understand how freedom and capitalism work.

 

but invites trade wars and then real wars like WW2. 1+1=2. America grew great because Constitution's purpose was to promote free trade between states.

 

A post that is devoid of rational, civil, sincere, and honest discussion in favor of only insults, attacks, name-calling, and lies only deserves to be ignored. And anyone who so posts deserves the same.

 

Do you mean "put aside" using the point of a liberal gun??

 

An employee is hired to feed a machine with the raw materials required to produce widgets. The function of the employee is to pick up the containers of raw materials using a fork lift and dump them into the correct hoppers which feed the machine. The employer recognizes an increased demand for the widgets and replaces the old machine with a newer one which runs much faster producing 10 times the number of widgets per day, and replaces the fork lift with a larger model capable of lifting and moving the larger containers of raw materials now being ordered to feed the machine. The employee continues to do exactly the same work as before, moving containers from point A to point B while the production AND profits increase 10 fold. Should the employees wage be increased 10 fold, or any at all?

 

Under capitalism he would have to be paid more since the company is in theory making more money with the improved machines. Do you understand? This is the pure beauty of Republican capitalism, it forces wealth to be shared.

 

Wrong again. They have ALREADY TAKEN our liberty to use the land. There was never any consent to this. Land titles were simply grandfathered from the time of royal land patents.

They don't and can't.

Just as slaves once "labored fruitfully" to buy their liberty from their owners.

No, it's because they are being systematically robbed of their wages to provide welfare subsidy giveaways to rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners.

Nope. Can't happen. Market wages are determined by the productivity of labor on marginal land. Stopping immigration would move the margin in a bit, but wages will still never be high.

Wrong and irrelevant.

There is no American free market. Americans are forced to give their wages to landowners as a welfare subsidy. The system is perfectly represented in places like San Francisco and NYC, where wages are indeed high -- and landowners take it all in rent.

 

if you remove the liberty of the peasants to own land through their labors you are enslaving them.

slavery is when one cannot labor fruitfully and only labors to be well fed and housed. laboring fruitfully means the peasant will someday have the same divine rights of kings as landowners from the fruits of their labors.

you are removing the ability of the peasant to create wealth from their own labors and productivity off the land, and asking them to redistribute wealth with their labors from the governments productivity in administering their land.

the people have an inheritance by birthright from the sacrifices of the founding fathers, who fought to remove englands kings from owning the land and giving that right to the peasants. today your government is the royalty who is taking the land from the people.

 

wrong wrong wrong obviously slavery is when you are property and have no freedom to do anything other than what your owner wants you to do.

 

laboring to be well fed and housed, or in todays terms paying the bills, is slavery.

only the rich are truly free.

 

of course that's an insult to the memory of real slaves who were shackled and whipped and sold etc etc.
I'm embarrassed for you but then you are a liberal.

 

low wage laborers today are shackled with debt, poor neighborhoods with violence, poisonous foods, dirty lead water, etc..

 

I used to think the same thing. Now I'm rich (relatively speaking) and am here to tell you that the only thing it "solves" is superficial things like the quality of food I can eat and the auto I can buy. It solves no other problems, and there are lots of other problems. Theoretically I could lie in bed all day, but that choice creates more problems than going to work. So I continue to work, as do most wealthy people and all wealthy people whom I know.

 

this is true. Several studies have shown that happiness increases to about $70,000 but after that it levels off with no increases in happiness.

 

As an illustration, a friend who polishes marble countertops and floors took me to see a "$25 million dollar house" he was working on. I was intrigued at the idea, but turns out it looked exactly like any other 25-year old house, just with a lot more rooms. There were some half eaten, cold scrambled eggs in a skillet in the kitchen, spoiling whatever magical effect it might otherwise have had.

And then the question becomes, how many rooms can you actually be in at one time anyway?

 

No, that is utter nonsense. The only way to own land "through their labors" is by buying it from someone who already owns it. But if someone already owns it, they own the liberty rights of the peasants to use it. Owning someone's right to liberty is by definition enslaving them, so your claim is proved self-contradictory: a purported "liberty" to own land by buying it from a previous owner is proof of already being enslaved.

Garbage. Slavery is forced labor.

Garbage. Many people who were not slaves have labored only to be well fed and housed.

Incoherent gibberish. Land is not the fruit of anyone's labors, so it can only be owned by forcibly removing the liberty rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use it -- i.e., by enslaving them.

That is factually incorrect. It is landowners who remove the liberty of the peasants to create wealth, by depriving them of access to opportunity, and who remove their liberty to keep the fruits of their labor, as proved by the condition of the landless in every society in history where private landowning was well established, but government did not intervene massively to rescue the landless from enslavement by landowners.

Gibberish unrelated to anything I have said.

Yep. Liberty, which landowning forcibly removes.

No, that's objectively false. Try reading the Declaration of Independence.

No, you are objectively wrong. Most land in the USA is corporate owned.

 

Just to set some facts straight.
The Federal government owns about 635,600,000 acres of the land within our borders.

As long as we're perpetuating the use of the term "surplus labor value", maybe we should step back and look at the term with a more rational perspective.
"Surplus labor" implies being more than that which is necessary, and our tax laws are written in a way that results in many paying no tax at all. Based on that, only those who are paying taxes should be considered to be performing "surplus labor", and the "value" of it is the amount of tax revenue collected by our government.

From 1789 until 1905 the U.S. dollar varied periodically in purchasing power with a 0.0% average inflation rate over the period resulting in the dollar having the same purchasing power it had in 1789.

From 1905 until 2016 the U.S. dollar has varied periodically in purchasing power with a 3.99% inflation rate over the period resulting in the dollar now purchasing what about $0.04 purchased in 1905. Our cost of living has doubled about every 18 years at that rate. A 3% rate would result in the cost of living doubling every 26 years or less, and a 2% rate would result in the cost of living doubling every 37 years or less. Government, and others living beyond their means welcome inflation as the means by which their debt is made to appear sustainable which only results in compounding the accumulation of more debt. As a result our ability to compete in the world market place has diminished as reflected in our trade balance with developing nations who are not irrationally trying to achieve equality of their populations where none exists through means of wealth redistribution. As most every nation is creating debt, the big question is which nation(s) will ultimately survive the race to economic collapse. Obviously not Greece. Perhaps China?

 

you are enslaving the peasant the same way the private corporation does or englands royalty did, where they labor only to be well fed and housed for the government's royal administration, not where the peasant is free to create and build wealth with their own plot of land that goes beyond just being well fed and housed.

your proposal transfers landownership from one royal power to another, from the royal private corporation to the royal government.

when the founding fathers defeated england for freedom, they did not give private land to huge corporations nor the government for administration, they gave it to the peasants to labor on fruitfully for their own survival and to build wealth upon.

i would agree that the private corporations have become oppressive royalty in their own right today, but the answer is not giving government more of that right as well that it already enjoys too.

 

stealing one's pursuit of happiness with debt slavery is comparable to watching one's children being beaten and sold into slavery, yes.

 

try to find one person on earth who agrees and when you cant take a look in the mirror at the IQ of liberalism.

 

What is the value of no labour performed?

 

The boss takes the 7 dollars collected from each worker and reinvests the capital into new machinery to expand the business, and pays out dividends to shareholders that help the business grow, which results in raises as productivity grows. Give the $7 dollars to the worker and it goes towards a pint of beer.

Unless of course as stated, you have a co-operative where each worker agrees to give up the $7.00 to the union heads, who choose the wisest course of reinvestment. The problem with co-operatives of course is that the workers have to be granted legal approval to take over the widgit plant once a the boss decides to shut it down for cost savings. Good luck with that, take a look at the attempts in Pennsylvania.

 

Yes, -"takes the 7 dollars from each worker". That is normally called "expropriation".

Paying out dividends does not help the business grow.

Thanks for the slanderous and dismissive attitude toward your own class. Given the stagnancy of wages and the growing debt, most workers have more important things to spend money on than beer.

You're right that the laws have neglected or even obstructed the possibilities for workers to form WSDEs.