John,
Alright, I was wrong, you do not ascribe to the labour theory of value
(however, see my remarks later on). But to say that a tomato only has valu=
e
when it is picked is to ascribe to something which is ridiculous. Does a
gold nugget only have value when it is picked up? Does fertile land only
have value when it is tilled? Does a mahogany tree (alas) only have value=
when it is cut down? Do the fish breeding in the water only do it the
moment before someone catches them?
The binary productiveness analysis deals with who or what produces the
wealth -- the mineral-bearing land massively contributes, as does the
fertile land and the mahogany tree. To say otherwise is to say that the ma=
n
who picks up the nugget is the one who produced it; that the man who cuts
down the tree did all the growing; and that the man who ploughs the field
has done all the growing. Frankly, that's preposterous.
You are perfectly right that the sun cannot be counted a capital item
becasue it cannot be owned but that does NOT deny its contribution to
production. It is a hubristic madness to deny the sun's contribution not
just to tomato-growing but to a vast range of productive activity on this
planet (including the provision of energy in various forms). Just becasue
something is not a capital item does NOT mean that it does not contribute t=
o
production.
Yes, I do disparage the effort it takes to dial a telephone number and =
I
just cannot believe that you think that pressing telephone buttons warrants=
a statement that the dialler does all the work of communicating a message
across the Atlantic.
You say the telephone network "represents countless hours of human labour
and ingenuity". That is the congealed labour theory (which you deny
ascribing to). It may have been built by humans but, once built, it goes o=
n
contribuiting to production by itself . That huge hydroelectric dam outsid=
e
Las Vegas had a lot of humans building it but, today, it does most of the
work itself, requiring but supervision and maintenance from a handful of
humans.
OK you approve of wide ownership but do not approve of the binary
arguments in support of that wide ownership. I think we can leave it at
that.
In another email to this elist I have dealt with a major new subject --=
the new website at www.globaljusticemovement.net and the impact on Islam, i=
n
particular. Like to visit it? It's not yet officially open -- there is
still much to be done -- but you can certainly read about the five Justices=
etc.
Rodney Shakespeare.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John M=E9daille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Social Credit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Sun, cow, fish, machine, hydroelectric dam,
i=3Dnternet
Rodney,
I don't think it is a useful tactic to ascribe to others views they did not=
express and which, in this case, they do not hold. I said nothing about the=
"labour theory of value," and do not hold it. I DO hold the priority of
labour over capital, and I deny the "independent productiveness" of
non-human resources. Further, I don't think you made the case. Let's look
at two examples you cited, the sun and the phone.
It is quite true that the sun, without any help from me, will produce
tomatoes in my garden, and will do so even in the wild. However, it is
equally true that these tomatoes have no *economic* value until somebody
picks them. Before that, they are not either a consumable or exchangeable
value, and hence can play no part in economic theory. Finally, it is
strange to hear you count the sun as a "capital" item, since the sun cannot=
be owned, but is given to all. No one this side of Montgomery Burns has
found a way to take possession of the sun and sell off its energy. Hence it=
is wrong to include it in your list of capital assets. The sun is already
equally distributed and shines on the just and the unjust alike. We are
speaking of distributing economic assets, assets which can through the
presence of unjust systems be poorly distributed.
That leaves the phone. You disparage the effort it takes to dial the phone.=
Very well, but nevertheless without this effort the phone has no value.
Further, even after the minimal effort to dial, you are connected to a vast=
network which represents countless hours of human labour and ingenuity. And=
when that labour stops, so does the "productiveness" of the phone network.
In no sense is it "independently" productive.
There is no issue about whether capital increases the value of labour, so I=
am not certain why you choose to belabor that point. The question is
whether it does anything independently of human labour, and the answer is
clearly NO. Since you base the allocation of benefits on this notion of
independent productiveness, your allocation is clearly wrong. And it is
this notion, more than any other, which prevents binary economics from
being taken seriously by economists.
Note that I am not an opponent of BE. Despite the rantings of Norm Kurland,=
I am a supporter and I retract nothing that I have ever said in support of
it. What I have suggested is that BE be modified in two respects: dropping
its insistence on the absolutism of property and dropping the economically
unsupportable notion of "independent productiveness." Leaving this baggage
behind will not change BE in any significant way, but it will all the
binarians to enter into fruitful discussions with economists, and with
ordinary businessmen. The decision to buy a lorry will be based not on
"independent productiveness", but on marginal utility. Further, that
decision also implies a concomitant decision to hire a driver or to drive
the thing yourself. There is nothing "independent" in the process.
Finally you dismiss the charge that binarians regard humans as if they were=
just another kind of machine. Well, I don't know about *all* binarians, but=
the rhetoric used in your previous post certainly leads to that conclusion.=
I suspect the problem in not with me, but with the way you choose to
express yourself. I can only advise that you read your own writings to
insure that others cannot draw this rather obvious conclusion from the way
you choose to state things. No businessman ever said, "oh, now I own a
fleet of independently productive trucks, soon I will be rich!" No, he
says, "I've got all of these trucks, which are a wasting asset, so I had
better find some truck-drivers!"
"Independently" productive they ain't.
John C. M=E9daille
"A dead thing can go with the stream...
but only a living thing can go against it."
-G. K. Chesterton
http://www.medaille.com/distributivism.htm
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=3D=3D^=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcQuHz.Um9kbmV5
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
=3D=3D^=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
