Message 05627 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05584 Message: 22/70 L8 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: Profit and Value, was: Re(2): [ox-en] extrinsic motivation = coercion

of course it's deeper. Subtlety abound. But getting the really simple
stuff right is very important...

  - Smári

marc fawzi wrote:
it's deeper than that, in my view, but that's as useful as saying nothing..

2009/5/6 Smári McCarthy <smari>:
I disagree. But I think this opinion may stem from a misunderstanding of
the meaning of "profit".

Profit != benefit. All work and produce thereof is, we can imagine, in
some way beneficial. However, profit comes only when the value of the
product is higher than the cost of production. If I try to profit from
you, I am trying to get from you more than what I am offering is worth.
In a free market, price theory says (which is, as Diego correctly points
out, an equilibrium theory, but equilibriums occur naturally in the
absence of external "coercive" influence), the ability of any player to
profit from another is decreased by the ability of third parties to
compete. If the market is free, competition (or, better, cooperation) is
on equal ground, and profit is driven to zero.

Once we rid ourselves of the necessity of increase, value comes from
deeper causes such as necessity. If profit is zero, there is still
production, but production becomes a function of necessity or desire
rather than the result of economic enslavement. If I do not have to play
the game, I won't.

 - Smári

Franz Nahrada wrote:
Smari  writes:
We shouldn't need to ban usury. One of the core tenets of neo-liberal
price theory is that, in a free market competition will force profit to
zero. (see definition of 'normal profit' for more on this).

that is very interesting, I never heard of that.

If profit is zero, there will be no production.

For me the best "proof" of the "labour theory of value" is simply the fact
that there is production.

If labour would not add value that can be turned into profit, there would
be no capitalistic production, no transsubstantiation of money into means
of production and labour force.

This is - by the way - the ultimate solution of the riddle of the "proof"
of value.

therefore value is not "at cost", this is a big error. Nobody would
produce for selling "at cost". And if we consider a non-market economy,
the term "cost" makes no sense as well as the term "profit"...

and we see that logically interest or usury are logical consequences of
this process, not the other way round.


Contact: projekt
Contact: projekt

Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT05584 Message: 22/70 L8 [In index]
Message 05627 [Homepage] [Navigation]