Message 04814 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04436 Message: 65/94 L15 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Robinsonades (was: Re: Role of markets)

The normal mind knows that there is a distinction between
calculating and loving, and that people in the capitalist society have a
sphere of calculating directly and another sphere where they are seemingly
allowed to follow their feelings (until they accept the "offer" of the
state to turn their feelings into a system of duties and rights).

What do you mean by "allowed to follow their feelings"?  Are you
saying most people are "loving" until the "state" causes them to
become "calculating"?

Is that where you think corporate foul play such as artificial
scarcity, planned obsolescence and orchestrated destruction come from?

Those vices arise when profit is treated as a reward for the current owners.

Treating profit as a reward incents the destruction of all other
sources of that product because profit is actually "price above cost",
and price only stays above cost while competition is imperfect.  When
each actor owns as much Capital required for the production of that
which he consumes, then price meets cost and profit hits zero.

we are nothing but thinking animals and have not reached
our human nature. This is why Marx said we are still in the "prehistory of
the human". I think neither Stefan nor anybody else here denies the fact
that humans ARE thinking that way, but its very controvesial to say this
is the nature of humans.

Sorry this caused such a stir.  I didn't realize it is such an
unpopular and apparently ghastly viewpoint.  It is simplification gone
too far.  I separated them in another thread.

Nash prove that competition is
destructive and actors can choose coopetition, which means to include a
cultural component in their action.

Since anything more than 1 person is a culture, I can agree with this claim.

5. In a discussion with Helmut Leitner who is a strong supporter of market
economy but a very open mind, we terminologically agreed to differ between
exchange and exchange, in German its easier to say, between "Austausch" -
humans share their "out of work - results" with each other - and "Tausch"
- they trade equivalents. I think we need to introduce such a
terminological difference here, too. If we recognize the fact that there
is a wide scale of "Austausch" relations - Michael in his systematic zeal
knows at least four basic ones of them - we do not confuse them with the
"Foolishness of the Equivalent" in "Tausch"- relations.

I'll have to look into that.  I'm very interested in term definitions.

Of course no human
being wants to be wasted away simply for the sake of others that dont

Could you help me understand what you mean here?

But its absolutely different to the system where basically every
economic transaction can only happen when in the SAME transaction an
"equal value" changes hand the other direction.

When are you saying "equal value" change hands?  During Trade?

If "During Trade", then what about your argument some months ago that
price should optimally never be reduced to cost.

How can the exchange be equal during Trade when Consumer Price is
different from Owner Costs?

Wouldn't the exchange be equal only when profit == 0?

Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT04436 Message: 65/94 L15 [In index]
Message 04814 [Homepage] [Navigation]