Re: Profit and Value, was: Re(2): [ox-en] extrinsic motivation = coercion
marc fawzi <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.politics.oekonux.english |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
it's deeper than that, in my view, but that's as useful as saying nothing.. 2009/5/6 Smári McCarthy <[email protected]>: > -----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] > -- Marc Fawzi Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256 LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi _________________________________ Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/ Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/ Contact: [email protected]