Re: Simon and Garfunkel
Barrister Shemano writes: ... Let's imagine the crew does all their work. They set up the special sound and light systems, etc. However, Simon and Garfunkel get into a fight and refuse to perform, so the show is cancelled and all ticket are refunded. The next night, Simon and Garfunkel reunite. The crew, pissed off, refuses to do any work. So Simon and Garfunkel go on stage, Simon plugs his guitar into the existent sound system, and notwithstanding the lack of special lighting, a backup band, etc., the two of them perform for 18,000 people who pay $2.7 million. I am not sure what my questions are. In what sense is the crew producing surplus value? What value did they produce on night one? What exactly is the value that is being created? Isn't all the value, for all practical purposes, being created by Simon and Garfunkel? Isn't the crews' value purely contextual and unrelated to their labor per se? This production process took two days. The crew produced the SV on the first day, but it was only _realized_ on the second. SG produced some of it on the second day, but they also claimed more than they produced. The fact that they were able to claim more than they produced (their monopoly power) is indicated that they were able to cancel the first day simply because of a spat -- and then allow the realization of the surplus-value on the second day. (This assumes that there are lots of people who would be willing to pay to hear their music.) It's possible that the produced SV could have gone to waste, i.e., if SG's spat had continued. In that case, the SV would not have been realized. jd
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
Yeah, but what if a terrorist hijacks Simon and Garfunkel's private jet and crashes into the stage after it was set up, killing the nauseating pair, and forcing a refund.. And suppose the concert insurance doesn't cover terrorist acts of god, then what... should the government step and subsidize the concert givers? compensate the victims families? Should it? Or should it let the market handle the matters-- according to the well known American traditions of fair play and non-cosmic justice-- the type practiced at Gitmo, and in Baghdad, or Sing-Sing? And what about the burn victims? Who should pay for that? Hey these are really important questions, and the fact that Marxists don't take them seriously shows how ill-suited Marxism really is to modern living. - Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Simon and Garfunkel Barrister Shemano writes: ... Let's imagine the crew does all their work. They set up the special sound and light systems, etc. However, Simon and Garfunkel get into a fight and refuse to perform, so the show is cancelled and all ticket are refunded. The next night, Simon and Garfunkel reunite. The crew, pissed off, refuses to do any work. So Simon and Garfunkel go on stage, Simon plugs his guitar into the existent sound system, and notwithstanding the lack of special lighting, a backup band, etc., the two of them perform for 18,000 people who pay $2.7 million. I am not sure what my questions are. In what sense is the crew producing surplus value? What value did they produce on night one? What exactly is the value that is being created? Isn't all the value, for all practical purposes, being created by Simon and Garfunkel? Isn't the crews' value purely contextual and unrelated to their labor per se? This production process took two days. The crew produced the SV on the first day, but it was only _realized_ on the second. SG produced some of it on the second day, but they also claimed more than they produced. The fact that they were able to claim more than they produced (their monopoly power) is indicated that they were able to cancel the first day simply because of a spat -- and then allow the realization of the surplus-value on the second day. (This assumes that there are lots of people who would be willing to pay to hear their music.) It's possible that the produced SV could have gone to waste, i.e., if SG's spat had continued. In that case, the SV would not have been realized. jd
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
if terrorists attack, it would be similar in effect to the hypothetical SG spat on the second night. The liability questions would be settled by the courts, mostly to help the rich. I don't know what should happen here. jd -Original Message- From: PEN-L list on behalf of sartesian Sent: Sun 7/4/2004 2:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Simon and Garfunkel Yeah, but what if a terrorist hijacks Simon and Garfunkel's private jet and crashes into the stage after it was set up, killing the nauseating pair, and forcing a refund.. And suppose the concert insurance doesn't cover terrorist acts of god, then what... should the government step and subsidize the concert givers? compensate the victims families? Should it? Or should it let the market handle the matters-- according to the well known American traditions of fair play and non-cosmic justice-- the type practiced at Gitmo, and in Baghdad, or Sing-Sing? And what about the burn victims? Who should pay for that? Hey these are really important questions, and the fact that Marxists don't take them seriously shows how ill-suited Marxism really is to modern living. - Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2004 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Simon and Garfunkel Barrister Shemano writes: ... Let's imagine the crew does all their work. They set up the special sound and light systems, etc. However, Simon and Garfunkel get into a fight and refuse to perform, so the show is cancelled and all ticket are refunded. The next night, Simon and Garfunkel reunite. The crew, pissed off, refuses to do any work. So Simon and Garfunkel go on stage, Simon plugs his guitar into the existent sound system, and notwithstanding the lack of special lighting, a backup band, etc., the two of them perform for 18,000 people who pay $2.7 million. I am not sure what my questions are. In what sense is the crew producing surplus value? What value did they produce on night one? What exactly is the value that is being created? Isn't all the value, for all practical purposes, being created by Simon and Garfunkel? Isn't the crews' value purely contextual and unrelated to their labor per se? This production process took two days. The crew produced the SV on the first day, but it was only _realized_ on the second. SG produced some of it on the second day, but they also claimed more than they produced. The fact that they were able to claim more than they produced (their monopoly power) is indicated that they were able to cancel the first day simply because of a spat -- and then allow the realization of the surplus-value on the second day. (This assumes that there are lots of people who would be willing to pay to hear their music.) It's possible that the produced SV could have gone to waste, i.e., if SG's spat had continued. In that case, the SV would not have been realized. jd
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
Prof. Devine writes: individual prices can't be explained or predicted using Marx's labor theory of value (more accurately, the law of value). Regular micro will do (though not the Chicago variant). It's a monopoly situation, where the sellers try to get as much of the consumer surplus as possible. That is, if they find someone who's willing to pay $200 to see Simon Garfunkel, they'll try to figure out how to get him or her to pay that much (using price discrimination). The sellers who benefit the most these days are usually Ticketmaster and ClearChannel rather than the performers. (The scalpers sometimes make a lot, but they also can lose a lot. It's not like Ticketmaster or ClearChannel, who have relatively stable incomes and relatively risk-free lives.) We were just discussing that capitalism is theft, appropriation of value, etc. Now, how did this play out at the concert? There were about 18,000 tickets sold. Let's conservatively say at an average price of $150, so there was a gross of $2,700,000 for one night's work. The Hollywood Bowl got a leasing fee. The crew was paid. Simon and Garfunkel either received a very hefty fee or a piece of the gate shared with the promoter. Now, from a Marxist perspective, what were the class relations at play? Whose labor created what value? Who exploited who? How would it work in PEN-Ltopia? Now why anyone would want to listen to Simon Garfunkel is beyond me. C'mon, you live in LA. Listening to anything at the Hollywood Bowl is worth it. Pack the basket, drink wine and stare at the stars --pure bliss. David Shemano
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
Councilor Shemano writes: We were just discussing that capitalism is theft, appropriation of value, etc. I wasn't in on that. Now, how did this play out at the concert? There were about 18,000 tickets sold. Let's conservatively say at an average price of $150, so there was a gross of $2,700,000 for one night's work. The Hollywood Bowl got a leasing fee. The crew was paid. Simon and Garfunkel either received a very hefty fee or a piece of the gate shared with the promoter. Now, from a Marxist perspective, what were the class relations at play? Whose labor created what value? Who exploited who? How would it work in PEN-Ltopia? The hired folks (the crew, etc.) probably produced more value than they received in wages, so Marxian exploitation was going on: surplus-value was likely produced (though I don't know the details of the case). SG are super-star members of the working class, so they probably got a chunk of the surplus-value on top of their wages. TicketMaster and the concert impresarios got the rest, I'd guess. I don't know who owns the Hollywood Bowl. If it's the city, then some of the surplus-value went to the (local part of the) state. The class relations part of the concert (exploitation, production of surplus-value) reflects the class relations of US capitalism as a whole. There was also some distribution of that s-v to SG, TicketMaster, the impresarios, and perhaps the city. In the ideal socialism, the concert would have been organized democratically, by a pact between a democratically-run city and a workers' cooperative running the Bowl. SG's company would also be a workers' cooperative (though I imagine that the performers would have more say than most in decisions). They wouldn't e earning super-star salaries. I wrote: Now why anyone would want to listen to Simon Garfunkel is beyond me. David: C'mon, you live in LA. Listening to anything at the Hollywood Bowl is worth it. Pack the basket, drink wine and stare at the stars --pure bliss. it's true that with chemical help, anything sounds good. Even John Ashcroft's singing? (the last is a reference to Fahrenheit 911. I can't say much about that flick that hasn't been said, except (as far as I was concerned) that it was preaching to the converted. I'd read too many reviews, so a lot of it wasn't surprising at all. The best part was the aforementioned singing and seeing Paul Wolfowitz comb his hair.) jd
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
David B. Shemano wrote: How would it work in PEN-Ltopia? Simon Garfunkel would have been sent to the glue factory long ago. Doug
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
In a message dated 7/2/2004 12:40:40 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We were just discussing that capitalism is theft, appropriation of value, etc. Now, how did this play out at the concert? There were about 18,000 tickets sold. Let's conservatively say at an average price of $150, so there was a gross of $2,700,000 for one night's work. The Hollywood Bowl got a leasing fee. The crew was paid. Simon and Garfunkel either received a very hefty fee or a piece of the gate shared with the promoter. Now, from a Marxist perspective, what were the class relations at play? Whose labor created what value? Who exploited who? How would it work in PEN-Ltopia? Comment Capitalism in its evolution from the prrevious economic and social order is birthed drench in blood, murder and theft. Capitalism means the private ownership of capital as means of production. Means of production are not never abstract and what is being referenced is the growth and expansion of the industrial system with the bourgeois property relations within. The industrial system with the bourgeois property relations within or in short speak, capitalism evolved on the basis of the slave trade and the expansion of heavy manufacture which made "modern" ship construction possible and the "mass production" of fire arms, steel and all the ingredients of sea travel and conquest. The development of navigation and science in general is given an impetus. The transition in the primary form of wealth from land to gold gave further impetus to the conquest of the Americas and theft of gold from the native populations. The industrial revolution basically began with the landing of Europeans in the Americas and its infrastructure basis took shape on the basis of the slave trade, as opposed to an abstract trafficking in black skin. War generally involves theft, plunder, rape and conquest. After the bourgeois property relations hasstood on its feet and transformed the old world to that of the new . . . industrial society . . . huge segments of the population have been converted into proletarians. The exploitation of the workers refers to the expropriation of the products of the workers and paying them as an aggregate a sum that is less than the prodeucts will fetch in the market. This surplus product or rather this surplus value is appropraited by the individual owners of productive forces and he may dispose of this surplus anyway he chooses. A portion of this surplus value will find its way back into production as each individual owners fights to expand his share ofwhat is in fact, an expandingsocietal value. This competition between individual owners of capital produces a series of economic and social consequences. The form of individual property ownership does not stand still. Today in the American union we have an economic and social system that allows individuals in possession of capital -- money, to be regarded as capitalist or treated as capitalist on the basis of wealth. One does not have to individually own a factory or the local pizza joint to be treated and regarded as a capitalists. Inherited wealth works just fine. However, the reality of private ownership is expressed as a bourgeois property relation on the basis by which products are created, bought and sold, the basis of their distribution and the circuit logic of reproduction as it is driven by competition between capital. Soviet industrial socialism most certainly did not pay the workers the full value of their labor, or rather an amount in wages that was the equivalent of the products produces or there would be nothing left over for expansion of productive forces. Capitalism or the bourgeois property relations does not pay the workers the equivalent of the products produces or there would be nothing left over for expansion of productive forces. The fundamental economic and social logic difference between Soviet industrial socialism and capitalist America is that in the former, no amount of money possession count allow one to convert their money into ownership of means of production with the power to privately expropriate the products of workers and reinvest the surplus into privately own enterprises. The element of competition between capitals in the market was absent and this produces a different curve and character of production and reproduction. There was most certainly theft, bribery, swindling and cheating under industrial socialism. Nevertheless, the state was the property holder and enacted laws that prevented the individual from converting money possession into ownership of means of production. The issue becomes a little complicated because all value producing systems - industrial systems, have certain features in common no matter what the property relations. This is true as development took place on earth. There were concerts under Soviet socialism and probably
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
Prof. Devine writes: The hired folks (the crew, etc.) probably produced more value than they received in wages, so Marxian exploitation was going on: surplus-value was likely produced (though I don't know the details of the case). SG are super-star members of the working class, so they probably got a chunk of the surplus-value on top of their wages. TicketMaster and the concert impresarios got the rest, I'd guess. I don't know who owns the Hollywood Bowl. If it's the city, then some of the surplus-value went to the (local part of the) state. The class relations part of the concert (exploitation, production of surplus-value) reflects the class relations of US capitalism as a whole. There was also some distribution of that s-v to SG, TicketMaster, the impresarios, and perhaps the city. In the ideal socialism, the concert would have been organized democratically, by a pact between a democratically-run city and a workers' cooperative running the Bowl. SG's company would also be a workers' cooperative (though I imagine that the performers would have more say than most in decisions). They wouldn't e earning super-star salaries. Humor me on this. I need some Marx 101. Let's imagine the crew does all their work. They set up the special sound and light systems, etc. However, Simon and Garfunkel get into a fight and refuse to perform, so the show is cancelled and all ticket are refunded. The next night, Simon and Garfunkel reunite. The crew, pissed off, refuses to do any work. So Simon and Garfunkel go on stage, Simon plugs his guitar into the existent sound system, and notwithstanding the lack of special lighting, a backup band, etc., the two of them perform for 18,000 people who pay $2.7 million. I am not sure what my questions are. In what sense is the crew producing surplus value? What value did they produce on night one? What exactly is the value that is being created? Isn't all the value, for all practical purposes, being created by Simon and Garfunkel? Isn't the crews' value purely contextual and unrelated to their labor per se? David Shemano
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
David the troller writes: Humor me on this. I need some Marx 101. Let's imagine the crew does all their work. They set up the special sound and light systems, etc. However, Simon and Garfunkel get into a fight and refuse to perform, so the show is cancelled and all ticket are refunded. The next night, Simon and Garfunkel reunite. The crew, pissed off, refuses to do any work. So Simon and Garfunkel go on stage, Simon plugs his guitar into the existent sound system, and notwithstanding the lack of special lighting, a backup band, etc., the two of them perform for 18,000 people who pay $2.7 million. Don't be silly. You are supposedly a lawyer. The refusal to perform negated the contract. But not the contractual duties owed to those expected to aid in the performance. The pathetic spat between the actual performers (in your little hypothetical) does not negate what the crew was due. And it is hardly a narrowed surplus value concept. Unlike some on here, I like the law. And the law does not negate equitable results. That has nothing to do with politics. (Or doesn't have to.) I also prefer Doctor Whiskers (and I reject those revisionists who have spoken on that subject just recently). Ken. -- You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world. -- Tyler Durden
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
Please, no personal attacks. If David were a troller, he could have been very disruptive here. He has not been. I suspect that the thread has exhausted itself. On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 07:12:22PM -0400, Kenneth Campbell wrote: David the troller writes: -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
Michael writes: Please, no personal attacks. If David were a troller, he could have been very disruptive here. He has not been. I honestly did not write David the troller in a negative way. Honestly! I thought he was just here to be the straw that stirs the drink that we all prefer. I think he's refreshing. Sorry for any excess on that subject to both of you. Stir away! :) Ken. -- Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present. -- Marcus Aurelius
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
Kenneth Campbell writes: Don't be silly. You are supposedly a lawyer. The refusal to perform negated the contract. But not the contractual duties owed to those expected to aid in the performance. The pathetic spat between the actual performers (in your little hypothetical) does not negate what the crew was due. And it is hardly a narrowed surplus value concept. Unlike some on here, I like the law. And the law does not negate equitable results. That has nothing to do with politics. (Or doesn't have to. You misunderstand my questions. I am not asking whether the crew should be paid. I am trying to understand the labor theory of value/surplus value/exploitation in context. David Shemano
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
David the non-trolled writes: You misunderstand my questions. I am not asking whether the crew should be paid. I am trying to understand the labor theory of value/surplus value/exploitation in context. I don't think I misunderstand your question. I was talking about the value of the crew. But please inform me of my errors, I am open to instruction, at any age. The labor/value thing is larger than micro economy, no? When you squish it into some smaller question, it is easier to make fun of the larger philosophical point? No? Like you are trying to do with Jim? At that point, that is where I was making comment about the law. Ken. -- What is the argument on the other side? Only this, that no case has been found in which it has been done before. That argument does not appeal to me in the least. If we never do anything which has not been done before, we shall never get anywhere. The law will stand whilst the rest of the world goes on; and that will be bad for both. -- Lord Denning Packer v. Packer [1953] 2 AER l27
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
In a message dated 7/2/2004 5:54:30 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let's imagine the crew does all their work. They set up the special sound and light systems, etc. However, Simon and Garfunkel get into a fight and refuse to perform, so the show is cancelled and all ticket are refunded. The next night, Simon and Garfunkel reunite. The crew, pissed off, refuses to do any work. So Simon and Garfunkel go on stage, Simon plugs his guitar into the existent sound system, and notwithstanding the lack of special lighting, a backup band, etc., the two of them perform for 18,000 people who pay $2.7 million.I am not sure what my questions are. In what sense is the crew producing surplus value? What value did they produce on night one? What exactly is the value that is being created? Isn't all the value, for all practical purposes, being created by Simon and Garfunkel? Isn't the crews' value purely contextual and unrelated to their labor per se? Comment I assume your question is honest. "So Simon and Garfunkel go on stage, Simon plugs his guitar into the existent sound system, . . .the two of them perform . . ." The existing sound system is a given state of technology and labor that exist as the infrastructure of the arena or there would be nothing to plug into. We can say that this preexisting infrastructure is so much dead labor . . . but it once was the work and effort of real human beings and a real technology. This dead labor - the infrastructure that Simon and Garfunkel are plugging into has been factored into the rent of the stadium. Dead labor is excited to life by living labor in the process that makes money. Even without special lighting they are standing on a stage - platform, that is the result of human labor and technology and the arena has seats that is the result of human labor and technology and represents what might be called "constant capital" or represents the results of labor that can be called "dead labor." This dead labor is excited to life by human activity or the people paying their money, sitting in the seats, the artists plugging into the sound system and entertaining. What is so difficult about this? Someone is running the lighting so that the people can see and they are going to be paid. Someone is selling hot dogs and beer and the people performing the administration of these things are being paid wages. The people who clean the bathrooms are being paid wages that comes out of the yearly revenues of the arena. The same applies to the parking attendants, the guards and folks punching your ticket and the ushers escorting one to their seats. This is not Marxism but elementary common economic sense. There is an unreal element to this entire conversation and far to many individually conceived ideas are attributed to Marx. Simon and Garfunkel get paid and their pay may come from a sponsor - Chrysler, and a thousand tickets as a block may have been purchased by the Miller Brewing Company or a dozen different scenarios. When Committeeman I would always run into convert ticket from vendors, hats, ink pens, calendars and an assortment of things that represented profit or surplus value to the producer. The system or economy is a totality and not one group of guys that may or may not work on any given Sunday. There is a combination of dead and living labor in everything . . . and one can always loss in the market and go out of business. Should we not think things out a little more rather than point an accusing finger at Marx . . . especially if one has not gotten further than Marxism 101? The thing I enjoyed about negotiating with the company at the upper levels is that they tend to be honest about cost and wages. They are very clear about dead labor - machinery and buildings, or fixed cost or constant capital. The categories swing back and forth because individuals want to call advertisement a fixed cost because it is indispensable to selling products. There are conceptional difference between real life definitions and Marx approach. Hell, if you call advertisement a fixed cost I am not going to argue with you from across the table. The finance guys are always screaming about cost because that is their jobs to stop the spending before the bottom of the bell curve becomes reality. In the auto industry more than half of management hate the finance guys and their perpetual cost cutting. Simon and Garfunkel plugged their equipment into something that already existed as part of the infrastructure and its cost is already factored into rent. However, all this dead shit takes real people . . . living human beings and living labor to exist to life as production of surplus value. ] Then you can go out of business. Melvin P.
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
Kenneth Campbell writes: I don't think I misunderstand your question. I was talking about the value of the crew. But please inform me of my errors, I am open to instruction, at any age. The labor/value thing is larger than micro economy, no? When you squish it into some smaller question, it is easier to make fun of the larger philosophical point? No? Like you are trying to do with Jim? At that point, that is where I was making comment about the law. I am not trying to make fun. I am trying to understand. For better or worse, I am a reductionist, as some of you may remember from a previous exchange. Therefore, I insist on narrowing issues to their most basic. As I understand the Marxist view at its most reductionist, if Simon and Garfunkel hire a electricial and pay him X, the actual value created by the electrician is more than X. What I am trying to understand is what was the value created by the electrician? If he does the work, but the show is cancelled and there is no revenue, was value created? If the same revenue is generated regardless of whether the electrician does the work, what is his contribution to the value? Now, if you want to say that the labor theory of value is useless analytically at the micro level, go ahead, but my impression is that would not be Marxian orthodoxy. David Shemano
Re: Simon and Garfunkel
David wrote: I am a reductionist, as some of you may remember from a previous exchange. Therefore, I insist on narrowing issues to their most basic. You write: I insist on narrowing issues to their most basic. I do, too, sir. Survival. Ability to raise kids. Dignity. My dad was working class for his whole life. And that is as reductionist as I can imagine. (And the most basic is what Karl and Fred talked about. Read them. Reductionists both.) The issues that made Dad keep his job, as told to me on my mother's knee, was We can't leave the union. She said it many times. Is that reductionist? Or were they stupid? Like Karl and Fred? grin Ken. -- If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses. -- Lenny Bruce
