John,
The binary productiveness analysis deals with the physical input into
production. A driver without a truck can only carry what he can carry on
his back i.e. very little. The lorry without the driver can carry nothing=
.
Together (plus road, gas etc) they can carry a vast amount.
Now consider an automated lorry (i.e. which works without a driver -- such
things are conceivable and there are certainly driverless trains). In this=
situation there is no driver yet there is a very considerable output. How
do explain that?
As you know, binary economics points out that the conventional productivity=
concept shows increasing human productivity rising and rising until it
shoots up to infinity -- or collapsing to zero! That happens becasue
conventional productivity wishes to attribute everything to labour and not
understand that the driverless truck (which works by itself) is really just=
a machine doing all the work by itslelf (plus road, gas/petrol etc).
The Las Vegas dam has administrators and maintenance people but that does
NOT mean that those people do all the work. It only means that they do SOM=
E
of the work. The rest of the work is done by the weather (which puts water=
into the sky and causes rain); gravity which causes the water to flow
downhill: concrete which causes the water to rise behind the dam: the flow=
of water then turns the generators generating electricity. And yet you
would wish to attribute all this to the humans?
You say that if humans withheld their work the telephone/internet system
would not work. Yes -- and if the telephone/internet system did not exist
you and I would be reduced to shouting across the Atlantic.
Could I try a little physics example? If you push on a wall, the wall
pushes back becasue you, and it, remain in balance. That is basic physics.=
Now you and Keith would deny that the wall pushes back becasue you would sa=
y
the wall has no volition. And yet the "pushing" happens even if no humans
are involved e.g. tables are pulled down by gravity and the floor pushes
back so that they remain in balance. I would be fascinated to read your
response on this. And maybe Keith could respond on it as well.
Binary economcis does not assign all the benefits of the mined gold to the
owner of the mine. And it does not say that the man who ploughs the field
does all the production and can claim all the benefit. The FIELD (helped b=
y
the sun etc) does a large part of the production -- it's the non-human
capital asset playing a big physical part in production. The man does not
do it all.
I am well aware that the telephone system was originally built by humans.
But they have been paid for their work and the ownership of the system --
which continues to work productively every day -- has now gone to the
present owners. As you know full well, binary economics proposes the wide,=
rather than narrow, ownership of that productive system and other systems.
You say that binary economics is small and fractious. The only
fractiousness occurs with people who are unwilling to make a complete
commitment to wide ownership (and who, all the time, find excuses for not
unequivocably supporting wide ownership). As for being allegedly small,
it's now doing very nicely, thankyou, (there are some clues at
www.globaljusticemovement.net) and binary economics does not say that other=
people are crazy but that a paradigm issue is involved. The battles betwee=
n
you, Keith and I are a typical manifestation of a paradigm battle. Have yo=
u
read Thomas Kuhn?
Rodney Shakespeare.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John M=E9daille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Social Credit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Sun, cow, fish, machine, hydroelectric dam,
=3Di=3D3Dnternet
At 11:10 PM 7/19/2003 +0100, Rodney Shakespeare wrote:
>John,
> Alright, I was wrong, you do not ascribe to the labour theory of valu=
e
>(however, see my remarks later on). But to say that a tomato only has
valu=3D
>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=3D
>
>when it is cut down? Do the fish breeding in the water only do it the
>moment before someone catches them?
The fish only have *economic* value when caught, the tomato when plucked,
the gold when mined. Gold especially is something that gains value *solely*=
from human commerce. I presume that "binary economics" deals with economic
values and not with aesthetic or other values.
>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.
But these things do not contribute "independently", which is your argument.=
the real question of course is not whether the unplucked tomato is
"independently productive" but whether the driverless lorry has an economic=
utility whatsoever. Quite obviously, it does not. This being the case, and
it is the case, what possible basis could there be for a claim of it
"independent" productivity? Its productive values only appear when in the
presence and activity of man. This is not an argument, it simply describes
the facts of the case, and there is reason to stay clear of an economic
theory that stays clear of the facts.
> To say otherwise is to say that the ma=3D
>n
>who picks up the nugget is the one who produced it;
But that is precisely what all economics, binary or otherwise, says, namely=
that the one who mines the gold or plucks the tomato owns all of its
economic values. Binarians do not dispute this claim, but assign all
economic benefits of the mined gold to the owner of the mine. In this
sense, BE is very conventional. It is rather strange of you to challenge
your own theory in this regard. The socialists, the distributists, the
georgists, may lay claim to a portion of the values in behalf of the
community, but certainly not the binarians.
> 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.
But he certainly derives all the benefits, at least according to BE.
> 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=3D
>o
>production.
Of course, you are making category errors. You are confusing the
contribution of the sun (which, because it is equal and free, is not
charged to anybody's account) with capital items, like tractors and trucks.=
When asked to show how these are "independently" productive, you point to
the sun. Is there not reason to believe that you have been staring at the
sun too long, and have confused it with man-made artifacts such as trucks?
The argument is not about the sun but about the truck, and the owner of the=
truck. And it is difficult to see the "productiveness" of the driverless
truck. If we could concentrate on that, I believe we could come to some
resolution.
> Yes, I do disparage the effort it takes to dial a telephone number an=
d
=3D
>I
>just cannot believe that you think that pressing telephone buttons
warrants=3D
>
>a statement that the dialler does all the work of communicating a message
>across the Atlantic.
Nobody said the dialer did, but I have said that somebody did, that the
work of the phone is still human work, and that if the humans withheld
their work then the phone would not work at all. Parts of the network may
indeed continue for a brief time, but in short order the whole system would=
crash. The phone, like all human artifacts, is not "independently"
productive, but only productive in the presence of humans.
>You say the telephone network "represents countless hours of human labour=
>and ingenuity". That is the congealed labour theory (which you deny
>ascribing to).
Rodney, why do you hang labels on everybody, instead of sticking to the
point? Are you denying that the phone network represents human labor, or
are you asserting that it got their by itself? As a point of mere fact,
insofar as you are capable of being impressed by facts at all, ALL capital
is the result of prior labor. If there is an exception to this rule in the
real world, I know of no economist who has located it. It is true that some=
give no respect at all to the origins of capital, but only to the present
ownership thereof. But even they did not assert the absurd, that the
capital created itself apart from human labour. I hope we are all clear on
that point.
> It may have been built by humans but, once built, it goes o=3D
>n
>contribuiting to production by itself . That huge hydroelectric dam
outsid=3D
>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.
Then by your own admission, it is not "independently" productive, if this
production only appears in the face of human administration and
maintenence. Your argument rapidly collapses.
The truth is that you, Rodney, are the biggest advocate of "independent"
productivity among the binarians, a theory which makes of BE a complete
laughingstock. Yet can you tell be what, exactly, would change if you
dropped the claims entirely, and adopted the standard marginal productivity=
calculations which you may find in any standard text? I say that *nothing*
would change. Binary theory would work as well or as poorly as it does.
BUT, you would be able to enter into ordinary economic discussions and have=
the theory examined by ordinary economic analysis. Further, you might have
something that actually corresponds to reality, and wouldn't have to talk
about something that is *never* seen.
> OK you approve of wide ownership but do not approve of the binary
>arguments in support of that wide ownership.
You don't read very well, do you? I do not oppose BE and support wider
ownership, as just about everybody does on this list and the COG list. I
have written on BE writings praised by Norman Kurland, writings which I see=
no need to retract. I do oppose silliness, particularly the silliness which=
keeps your movement small and fractious. I do oppose the silliness which
seems to have so little relation to reality and which forces you to argue
that everybody else if crazy (or at the very least, insensitive of new
pardigms), or to engage in other such and much worse ad hominems.
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]
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
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
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
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
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
