--0-244355520-1058723926=3D:41276 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
I will grant the productivity of capital, which is always on the increase a= s automation advances. I will even conceed to BE an interesting method to = allocate the ownership of all future capital equipment - provided they can = foreclose its ownership by the existing owners by obliterating the use of r= etained earnings by corporations and by using the creation of money to esse= ntially force corporations to finance new equipment purchases through capit= al homesteading by making the credit almost free (in comparison to issuing = capital in the secondary market or by borrowing through the financial syste= m). =20 Is this a fair summary, Rodney, et al? =20 Having conceeded that, I believe that installing such a system is highly un= likely, as it vastly limits the power of existing shareholders and CEOs, wh= o seem to have a lock on our elected officials through their abuse of bribe= ry disguised as campaign financing. This is why I have suggested hitching = the ownership wagon to the almost inevitable reform of social security (whi= ch I predict for the second Bush term). =20 Michael Bindner =20 John M=E9daille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rodney, I don't think it is a useful tactic to ascribe to others views they did not= =20 express and which, in this case, they do not hold. I said nothing about the= =20 "labour theory of value," and do not hold it. I DO hold the priority of=20 labour over capital, and I deny the "independent productiveness" of=20 non-human resources. Further, I don't think you made the case. Let's look= =20 at two examples you cited, the sun and the phone. It is quite true that the sun, without any help from me, will produce=20 tomatoes in my garden, and will do so even in the wild. However, it is=20 equally true that these tomatoes have no *economic* value until somebody= =20 picks them. Before that, they are not either a consumable or exchangeable= =20 value, and hence can play no part in economic theory. Finally, it is=20 strange to hear you count the sun as a "capital" item, since the sun cannot= =20 be owned, but is given to all. No one this side of Montgomery Burns has=20 found a way to take possession of the sun and sell off its energy. Hence it= =20 is wrong to include it in your list of capital assets. The sun is already= =20 equally distributed and shines on the just and the unjust alike. We are=20 speaking of distributing economic assets, assets which can through the=20 presence of unjust systems be poorly distributed. That leaves the phone. You disparage the effort it takes to dial the phone.= =20 Very well, but nevertheless without this effort the phone has no value.=20 Further, even after the minimal effort to dial, you are connected to a vast= =20 network which represents countless hours of human labour and ingenuity. And= =20 when that labour stops, so does the "productiveness" of the phone network.= =20 In no sense is it "independently" productive. There is no issue about whether capital increases the value of labour, so I= =20 am not certain why you choose to belabor that point. The question is=20 whether it does anything independently of human labour, and the answer is= =20 clearly NO. Since you base the allocation of benefits on this notion of=20 independent productiveness, your allocation is clearly wrong. And it is=20 this notion, more than any other, which prevents binary economics from=20 being taken seriously by economists. Note that I am not an opponent of BE. Despite the rantings of Norm Kurland,= =20 I am a supporter and I retract nothing that I have ever said in support of= =20 it. What I have suggested is that BE be modified in two respects: dropping= =20 its insistence on the absolutism of property and dropping the economically= =20 unsupportable notion of "independent productiveness." Leaving this baggage= =20 behind will not change BE in any significant way, but it will all the=20 binarians to enter into fruitful discussions with economists, and with=20 ordinary businessmen. The decision to buy a lorry will be based not on=20 "independent productiveness", but on marginal utility. Further, that=20 decision also implies a concomitant decision to hire a driver or to drive= =20 the thing yourself. There is nothing "independent" in the process. Finally you dismiss the charge that binarians regard humans as if they were= =20 just another kind of machine. Well, I don't know about *all* binarians, but= =20 the rhetoric used in your previous post certainly leads to that conclusion.= =20 I suspect the problem in not with me, but with the way you choose to=20 express yourself. I can only advise that you read your own writings to=20 insure that others cannot draw this rather obvious conclusion from the way= =20 you choose to state things. No businessman ever said, "oh, now I own a=20 fleet of independently productive trucks, soon I will be rich!" No, he=20 says, "I've got all of these trucks, which are a wasting asset, so I had= =20 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.bdXzjS.aW93YWVx 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 --0-244355520-1058723926=3D:41276 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii <DIV>I will grant the productivity of capital, which is always on the incre= ase as automation advances. I will even conceed to BE an interesting = method to allocate the ownership of all future capital equipment - provided= they can foreclose its ownership by the existing owners by obliterating th= e use of retained earnings by corporations and by using the creation of mon= ey to essentially force corporations to finance new equipment purchases thr= ough capital homesteading by making the credit almost free (in comparison t= o issuing capital in the secondary market or by borrowing through the finan= cial system).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Is this a fair summary, Rodney, et al?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Having conceeded that, I believe that installing such a system is high= ly unlikely, as it vastly limits the power of existing shareholders and CEO= s, who seem to have a lock on our elected officials through their abuse of = bribery disguised as campaign financing. This is why I have suggested= hitching the ownership wagon to the almost inevitable reform of social sec= urity (which I predict for the second Bush term).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Michael Bindner</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR><BR><B><I>John M=E9daille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]></I></B> wrote:= </DIV> <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #101= 0ff 2px solid; WIDTH: 100%">Rodney,<BR><BR>I don't think it is a useful tac= tic to ascribe to others views they did not <BR>express and which, in this = case, they do not hold. I said nothing about the <BR>"labour theory of valu= e," and do not hold it. I DO hold the priority of <BR>labour over capital, = and I deny the "independent productiveness" of <BR>non-human resources. Fur= ther, I don't think you made the case. Let's look <BR>at two examples you c= ited, the sun and the phone.<BR><BR>It is quite true that the sun, without = any help from me, will produce <BR>tomatoes in my garden, and will do so ev= en in the wild. However, it is <BR>equally true that these tomatoes have no= *economic* value until somebody <BR>picks them. Before that, they are not = either a consumable or exchangeable <BR>value, and hence can play no part i= n economic theory. Finally, it is <BR>strange to hear you count the sun as = a "capital" item, since the sun cannot <BR>be owned, but is given to all. No one this side of Mont= gomery Burns has <BR>found a way to take possession of the sun and sell off= its energy. Hence it <BR>is wrong to include it in your list of capital as= sets. The sun is already <BR>equally distributed and shines on the just and= the unjust alike. We are <BR>speaking of distributing economic assets, ass= ets which can through the <BR>presence of unjust systems be poorly distribu= ted.<BR><BR>That leaves the phone. You disparage the effort it takes to dia= l the phone. <BR>Very well, but nevertheless without this effort the phone = has no value. <BR>Further, even after the minimal effort to dial, you are c= onnected to a vast <BR>network which represents countless hours of human la= bour and ingenuity. And <BR>when that labour stops, so does the "productive= ness" of the phone network. <BR>In no sense is it "independently" productiv= e.<BR><BR>There is no issue about whether capital increases the value of la= bour, so I <BR>am not certain why you choose to belabor that point. The question is <BR>whether = it does anything independently of human labour, and the answer is <BR>clear= ly NO. Since you base the allocation of benefits on this notion of <BR>inde= pendent productiveness, your allocation is clearly wrong. And it is <BR>thi= s notion, more than any other, which prevents binary economics from <BR>bei= ng taken seriously by economists.<BR><BR>Note that I am not an opponent of = BE. Despite the rantings of Norm Kurland, <BR>I am a supporter and I retrac= t nothing that I have ever said in support of <BR>it. What I have suggested= is that BE be modified in two respects: dropping <BR>its insistence on the= absolutism of property and dropping the economically <BR>unsupportable not= ion of "independent productiveness." Leaving this baggage <BR>behind will n= ot change BE in any significant way, but it will all the <BR>binarians to e= nter into fruitful discussions with economists, and with <BR>ordinary busin= essmen. The decision to buy a lorry will be based not on <BR>"independent productiveness", but on = marginal utility. Further, that <BR>decision also implies a concomitant dec= ision to hire a driver or to drive <BR>the thing yourself. There is nothing= "independent" in the process.<BR><BR>Finally you dismiss the charge that b= inarians regard humans as if they were <BR>just another kind of machine. We= ll, I don't know about *all* binarians, but <BR>the rhetoric used in your p= revious post certainly leads to that conclusion. <BR>I suspect the problem = in not with me, but with the way you choose to <BR>express yourself. I can = only advise that you read your own writings to <BR>insure that others canno= t draw this rather obvious conclusion from the way <BR>you choose to state = things. No businessman ever said, "oh, now I own a <BR>fleet of independent= ly productive trucks, soon I will be rich!" No, he <BR>says, "I've got all = of these trucks, which are a wasting asset, so I had <BR>better find some truck-drivers!"<BR><BR>"Independently" productive they ain't.<BR><BR><BR>J= ohn C. M=E9daille<BR><BR>"A dead thing can go with the stream...<BR>but onl= y a living thing can go against it."<BR>-G. K. Chesterton<BR>http://www.med= aille.com/distributivism.htm<BR>[EMAIL PROTECTED]<BR><BR>=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<BR>This email was sent to: iowaequi= [EMAIL PROTECTED]<BR><BR>EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84Ia= C.bdXzjS.aW93YWVx<BR>Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] om<BR><BR>TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!<BR>http://w= ww.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html<BR>=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<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> --0-244355520-1058723926=3D:41276--
