Harry Pollard wrote: > >> We should remember that production takes place only because of > >> Wages - the return to Labor. > > > >You mean only paid work gets done? Who is paying you to write on FW? > >McD? Now you gave it away... > > In Classical Political Economy "Labor" is the word given to > exertion used in the production of Wealth. > > "Wealth" is a material product produced for the satisfaction of > human desires and having exchange value. > > So, I know exactly what I'm talking about. Others who use exact > speech also know what I am talking about. Unfortunately, outside > the rigor of carefully defined concepts, this isn't true. > > When, for example, a dozen people are talking about Wages it is > likely they enjoy (or suffer) a dozen different meanings.
Fine, then you surely can explain exactly what kind of Wage you receive for producing postings on FW, to support your assertion that "production takes place only because of Wages". > >True, Marx offered a red herring (literally). The real warring camps > >are producers vs. predators. Unfortunately managers and CEOs tend to > >be predators these days. It could be different. > > I would like to know exactly what you mean by "predators". This is a complex topic, but briefly one may describe predators as those who make money by exploiting (deceiving and/or forcing) others, as opposed to producing genuine values. > >> Less so in North America two centuries ago - you'll recall that > >> de Tocqueville was amazed at the absence of beggars is America. > > > >Did they shoot them (like the Injuns) or let them starve? > > Neither - they just weren't there. If I could make a suggestion, > perhaps you should think about things rather then dreaming up > cute remarks which get to be more tiresome than cute. You can do > better. Perhaps you could simply state why you think there were no beggars. > >Do you know how the mafia deals with air pollution and toxic waste? > >Mafia (black market) is free trade, in your own words. And in Brussels too. > > When people supply things that other people want but the > government prevents them from having, entrepreneurs 'illegally' > satisfy their needs. Others, who I'm sure you would call > 'predators', then bribe the government to stop this competition > which is then labeled the black market. And what if people want to simply dump their toxic waste into the woods, and to pollute the air at will? > >> The danger is that should government economists read what you > >> say, they might decide to try it. > > > >They're already on their way, without Brad tipping them off. > >Currently they're busy privatizing water. I guess air will be next. > > Air is a resource we own in common. If you could carry that > thought a little further to embrace land and the oceans, you > might improve your understanding. Yes, water is a resource we own in common too, yet the economists are privatizing it. Like land and perhaps soon (clean) air too. Maybe we should remove economists from the power they have before it will be too late to survive on this planet. Chris _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
