Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
I drink your milkshake! a metaphor for capitalism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 2610789" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>You should at least quote the source. If you don't know the source, search it and that is not hard to do as I did to find out where it came from.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why would you think the above would as you say, "have us living in caves?" If you actually read through what is being said, some of that sounds a bit like the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ff0000"><strong>"labor theory of value" </strong></span></a>once a popular notion among advocates of Political Economy. It's not exact but it does have certain parallels with what later advocates of the theory have argued. Ironically one of the early advocates of the labor theory of value was none other than Adam Smith and it was Smith's positions that influenced Marx in his own adaptation of this economic theory. Thomas Paine was another. Last I heard none of them lived in caves so why would you think this would occur now?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Any system that employs a State as a means of compulsion and force will always have a component of exploitation to it. Does not mean any of these won't exist without a State but it won't have the capacity to monopolize and thus dominate a society or culture if the State is not there to compel it to be so.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In a sense, yes on some level. In 1975, in <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=kXixSgAACAAJ&dq=Spatial+Monopoly,+Natural+Monopoly,+Pure+Profits,+and+Land+Rents,&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD7e6ol-XRAhUM4IMKHQFmCC8Q6AEIJTAA" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ff0000"><strong>"</strong></span></a><span style="font-size: 15px"><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=kXixSgAACAAJ&dq=Spatial+Monopoly,+Natural+Monopoly,+Pure+Profits,+and+Land+Rents,&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD7e6ol-XRAhUM4IMKHQFmCC8Q6AEIJTAA" target="_blank"><span style="color: #ff0000"><strong>Spatial Monopoly, Natural Monopoly, Pure Profits, and Land Rents"</strong></span></a> the authors Curtis Eaton and Richard Lipsey wrote about profits and one point made that I'll paraphrase made sense to me the more I pondered on it. They stated that economic profits do not occur in a system of perfect competition as the nature of such would have no barriers to entry and thus new firms would enter the market thus driving down profits ultimately to zero. They went on to point out that profits require a market intervention, to keep certain numbers of actors out in order to maintain said profit. If one seeks a profit, then a truly Free Market with no State or 3rd party intervention is the very last thing you want but if it is profit you seek, an interventionist State or some form of central planning 3rd party is necessary in order to derive a profit. Now granted this alone is not the end all on this matter but it does make for an interesting economic thought exercise.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 15px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 15px">So to conclude, in order to derive a profit, some manner of market exploitation or market interventions is needed and thus necessary. Even a seller is trying to exploit the buyer to the optimum while the buyer is attempting the same for her own benefit and the resulting final price determines who was the better exploiter if you will.</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 2610789, member: 2189"] You should at least quote the source. If you don't know the source, search it and that is not hard to do as I did to find out where it came from. Why would you think the above would as you say, "have us living in caves?" If you actually read through what is being said, some of that sounds a bit like the [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value'][COLOR=#ff0000][B]"labor theory of value" [/B][/COLOR][/URL]once a popular notion among advocates of Political Economy. It's not exact but it does have certain parallels with what later advocates of the theory have argued. Ironically one of the early advocates of the labor theory of value was none other than Adam Smith and it was Smith's positions that influenced Marx in his own adaptation of this economic theory. Thomas Paine was another. Last I heard none of them lived in caves so why would you think this would occur now? Any system that employs a State as a means of compulsion and force will always have a component of exploitation to it. Does not mean any of these won't exist without a State but it won't have the capacity to monopolize and thus dominate a society or culture if the State is not there to compel it to be so. In a sense, yes on some level. In 1975, in [URL='https://books.google.com/books?id=kXixSgAACAAJ&dq=Spatial+Monopoly,+Natural+Monopoly,+Pure+Profits,+and+Land+Rents,&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD7e6ol-XRAhUM4IMKHQFmCC8Q6AEIJTAA'][COLOR=#ff0000][B]"[/B][/COLOR][/URL][SIZE=4][URL='https://books.google.com/books?id=kXixSgAACAAJ&dq=Spatial+Monopoly,+Natural+Monopoly,+Pure+Profits,+and+Land+Rents,&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD7e6ol-XRAhUM4IMKHQFmCC8Q6AEIJTAA'][COLOR=#ff0000][B]Spatial Monopoly, Natural Monopoly, Pure Profits, and Land Rents"[/B][/COLOR][/URL][B] [/B]the authors Curtis Eaton and Richard Lipsey wrote about profits and one point made that I'll paraphrase made sense to me the more I pondered on it. They stated that economic profits do not occur in a system of perfect competition as the nature of such would have no barriers to entry and thus new firms would enter the market thus driving down profits ultimately to zero. They went on to point out that profits require a market intervention, to keep certain numbers of actors out in order to maintain said profit. If one seeks a profit, then a truly Free Market with no State or 3rd party intervention is the very last thing you want but if it is profit you seek, an interventionist State or some form of central planning 3rd party is necessary in order to derive a profit. Now granted this alone is not the end all on this matter but it does make for an interesting economic thought exercise. So to conclude, in order to derive a profit, some manner of market exploitation or market interventions is needed and thus necessary. Even a seller is trying to exploit the buyer to the optimum while the buyer is attempting the same for her own benefit and the resulting final price determines who was the better exploiter if you will.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
I drink your milkshake! a metaphor for capitalism
Top