Re: [ox-en] Re: What is profit?
- From: "Patrick Anderson" <agnucius gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:49:04 -0700
Stefan Mz,
Thanks for your patience and persistence.
I hope we can get our terms of discussion (the words we use)
defined/agreed clearly enough to have more useful discussions that
lead to discovering what is currently wrong.
I really don't care much what definitions are attached to which terms,
only that there is consistency and continuity.
With that in mind, I would like to try my hand at interpreting what is meant.
Please read these more as questions than as statements.
I'm ASKING if these definitions are correct.
When I use my own term definitions, things make sense to me, but some
of the definitions I give below actually conflict with each other
because I am trying to mesh with what others are claiming, so please
help by giving your own definition when one that I have written seems
incorrect.
Stefan Meretz wrote:
Value addresses the amount of labour being
necessary to produce the product,
First of all, when you say "Value", do you mean "Exchange Value" or
"Surplus Value" or "Use Value" or something else?
My original understanding for measuring the "amount of labor" (though
I would say it is quantity*quality, not just 'amount') is simply
"Wage". So my first definition is:
1.) Wage == "Labor Value"
This says that workers already receive as much value as they add to
the product in the form of the wages they are paid.
I say this because I think the worker is being exploited as a Consumer
through overpriced product, not as a Worker through underpriced wage.
But I doubt that is what you are saying. More likely you are talking
about the "Labor Theory of Value" which states that all "Surplus
Value" occurs because of value of labor added in production, so, if
that "Value" is "Surplus Value", and if it is also-known-as "Profit",
we have:
2.) Profit == "Value" == "Surplus Value"
Are these three terms identical? I think so.
Now, I assume the "Labor Theory of Value" allows the worker to also
receive the Wage they are already being paid, so our next definition
(which conflicts with definition #1) is:
3.) "Labor Value" == Wage + Profit
I do not agree with this assertion which seems to be saying the worker
should be paid a wage, and should also receive any "Surplus Value"
that occurs at the point-of-sale.
price addresses the amount of
money the product achieves on the market when sold.
Yes, so:
"Consumer Price" == "Market Price"
And, since "Consumer Price" is generally higher than "Owner Costs",
isn't the difference called "Surplus Value", or "Profit"? Isn't it
true that:
"Consumer Price" == "Owner Costs" + "Surplus Value"
And:
"Owner Costs" == "All costs of production" + Wages
So it looks to me that:
"Consumer Price" == "All costs of production" + Wages + Profit
This seems so elementary, I don't understand the problem.
As Paul mentions,
the prices are "random variables dispersed around values".
Hmm. Are you and Paul saying that "Consumer Price" is difficult to
predict? I agree, but I'm not talking about what a Consumer MIGHT
pay, I'm talking about what he finally DOES pay.
If you pay $12 for a pint of beer at Octoberfest, the owners of the
beer-stand can calculate their costs and profits can they not?
If a business can't calculate profits, then how is it that they
periodically report these values to the collective Owners of that
corporation?
There is no
direct relationship concerning a single product (like value=price),
It seems to me if:
Price == "Consumer Price"
and:
Profit == "Surplus Value"
which is longhand for:
Profit == Value
then:
Price == Value + Costs (including wages)
I don't see how that could possibly be untrue.
which is part of the difficulty to analyze any concrete situation. Only
over time and location the equation value=price is valid.
I personally think Profit and Price will NEVER be the same since Price
always includes Costs, and Profit is the difference - or the "Surplus
Value".
Such as:
Price = Profit + Costs
But Price and *Cost* are the same when the Consumer is the Owner:
"Consumer Price" == "Owner Costs" |when| the product Consumer is the
source Owner
This is because:
Profit == 0 |when| Consumer owns the Capital needed for production.
When you own an apple tree, you might pay someone a wage to work on
it, but you can't pay Profit, for who would you pay it to?
surplus value (or profit)
is part of the product value (cost is a notion of prices, thus I avoid
it).
Is "Product Value" the same as "Consumer Price"?
If so, then I agree since:
"Consumer Price" == Profit + "Owner Costs"
If so, are you saying "consumer price" would equal "owner costs"? If
so, then doesn't that mean profit would be zero?
No, because surplus value (or profit) is part of product value.
Just because "Consumer Price" is sometimes larger than "Owner Costs",
it doesn't mean it MUST be.
When the Product Consumer is the Source Owner, then Profit == 0
"Product Value" == "Owner Costs" and Profit == 0 |when| the "Product
Consumer" is the "Source Owner"
2. As competition is maximized, do you see profit being minimized, or
is there no correlation?
I answered this question already (for capitalism): "When competition
is "perfect" then commodities are sold at their value".
What do you mean by "Value" here? Are you saying:
"Consumer Price" == Profit
What a strange notion. What about "Owner Costs"? Isn't "Profit" the
same as "Surplus Value"? Who will pay the Costs? "Profit" is a
"Surplus" that occurs only IF Costs are paid.
Then the profit
(surplus value) is realized.
Perfect competition only occurs when every Product Consumer has
sufficient Source Ownership to cause Profit to equal 0. They needn't
be workers in that exact field, they only need Ownership for the
protection it provides them of having sufficient say about what is
produced, and to avoid having to pay the externality of profit.
Sincerely,
Patrick
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de