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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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.
> 
> Franz
> 
> _________________________________
> Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
> Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
> Contact: [email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkoBkA4ACgkQ9cJSn8kDvvFCbQCgwiuUH6k/iPIOWuW5mK+TGx+y
uRMAoN0UWMS80IxosQ9R7q6Cyf91wGnU
=ZwCE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]