Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

It's Not Your Imagination, You Really Are Working Harder For Less Money.


Guest BoomBoomCrash

Recommended Posts

Oh dear Stars...

I was hoping otherwise, but it would appear you have inherited injin's dishonourable practice of doing a runner when presented with difficult issues, only to return when the issue in question is likely to be buried under a couple of pages of posts.

I do hope I am wrong on this.......

Yes, you are.

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 361
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I did not say that people should not be able to freely trade things that are produced by them. I am saying that the vast majority of them cannot freely trade things that are produced by them since all production costs and capacities are ultimately dictated by who controls the land and the energy and it is complex industrial civilisation itself that affords the opportunity for a small number of economic agents to control vast swathes of the above.

Although the results of trade under these conditions may look unfair, the source of the unfairness is not trade, but rather unfair restrictions in trade created by abusive forms of property.

I mention energy as a separate phenomenon here only because, prior to the industrial use of hydrocarbons, energy and land were functionally synonymous. The industrial use of hydrocarbons has temporarily allowed a disconnect between the two. However, the days of this disconnect are now numbered and so, in the end, it comes back to the land once more, as it was always bound to.

'Land + energy' is a redundancy - the capacity to collect and use energy is (pragmatically) completely enclosed by land.

Think - when coal (steam power) became available, the increased economic potential appeared in the rents on land. The new value appeared in land values, because there is nowhere else to go to use the potential of coal. The landlord collected much of the new value steam + coal created. The landlords of the uk may just have well physically collected the coal and sold it as charge an increasing market price in rents for all the economic benefits it afforded people.

In the absence of control of land and energy, (being, as they are, the central means of production) all other production, and consequent trade, cannot be free as it is fundamentally dependant on them, however indirect and tortuous the causal relationships.

What i am saying is akin to saying 'taxes distort markets' - so, in the same way bad property distorts trade and causes costs and poverty. An example of badly conceived property might be slavery or the divine right to rule, similarly, if somebody owned sunshine, that would (probably) also distort and hinder trade and production and make people poor.

Your own analyisis points to the above. You are just unwilling to accept the inevitable logic of your position because of your ideological adherence to the idea of a free-market as an entity that has some kind of metaphysical truth to it and is, as a consequence, somehow magically independant of the physical constraints in which it occurs.

Which is, of course, deeply ridiculous.

You are thinking about this as left vs right; it aint.

Edited by Stars
Link to post
Share on other sites
You need the services of heavies to permanently secure the best spots though.

If you're not careful it can turn into a expensive arms race / war of attrition.

eight

WTF? Since when. I'm no expert but I always assumed you just need to get the council's permission and pay a token monthly payment to do it in a particular place.

And if there are any rules e.g. no new competition allowed if a van already occupies a spot then that is completely against everything capitalism stands for and is socialism of the highest order. So I hope such a rule doesn't exist, though I've never enquired about this line of business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Washers are easy to get and easy to replace- does this mean they add no value to the operation of a machine? If the machine could not operate without them, they have a functional value that is not dependant on how many there are in existance. Note: I am not talking here of monetary value, I am talking of the value they add in terms of allowing the machine to operate. Washers could literaly grow on trees and still have a functional value to the machine.

Functionality value? - ok lets go with that

The functionality of a washing machine is that it reduces the amount of effort needed to wash clothes.

The best way to measure this value is to measure the amount of effort it saves you. We will call the amount of effort needed to wash clothes EW (effort of washing)

lets look at the functionality value of two washing machines, one fully functioning and one with a broken washer.

Fully functioning This saves you all the effort of washing, so its functionality value = EW (effort of washing)

Broken washer This does not save you all the effort of washing because you have to add a bit of effort to fix it, so this has a functionality value of EW minus EF OR (effort of washing) - (effort of fixing)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, BBC's threads always end up with a 'debate' between the same posters which is more like an argument going back and forth in a circle without actually progressing. It looks more like two people claiming they are both right.

I'm not going to join the debate this time because it's the same as ever, with no new points covered and the 'ideal solution' and realistic solution were obvious from the first or second time this debate occured which must be over a year ago now!

I can understand why Injin has all the time in the world to constantly post the same things, but I'm not sure why Bogbrush, the self confessed successful entrepreneur would want to use his valuable time joining the repetitive debates.

I read HPC a lot but usually only post when I believe I have something relevant and interesting to say but the second half of this whole thread had no new/ interesting points whatsoever!

It's starting to become more like a comedy rap on the theories of ownership. What do I pay you guys for? :angry: :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Functionality value? - ok lets go with that

The functionality of a washing machine is that it reduces the amount of effort needed to wash clothes.

The best way to measure this value is to measure the amount of effort it saves you. We will call the amount of effort needed to wash clothes EW (effort of washing)

lets look at the functionality value of two washing machines, one fully functioning and one with a broken washer.

Fully functioning This saves you all the effort of washing, so its functionality value = EW (effort of washing)

Broken washer This does not save you all the effort of washing because you have to add a bit of effort to fix it, so this has a functionality value of EW minus EF OR (effort of washing) - (effort of fixing)

If you replaced the broken washer with a shiney new one and fixed the machine, and the very next day I manufactured a billion more shiney new washers, would the one you fixed the machine with perform any differently?

Would it's 'functionality value' have been altered by the existance of the billion I have made? Or would it add exactly the same (functional) value as before I made a billion more washers?

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you replaced the broken washer with a shiney new one and fixed the machine, and the very next day I manufactured a billion more shiney new washers, would the one you fixed the machine with perform any differently?

No (of course not)

Except that the service of washing clothes would now(theoretically) be slightly cheaper

Would it's 'functionality value' have been altered by the existance of the billion I have made? Or would it add exactly the same (functional) value as before I made a billion more washers?

It's possession would now represent a smaller advantage in terms of convenience to me, because having it only saves a smaller part of the potential inconvenience of washing

If i had to choose between losing one of these washers and one of a special rare type, i would now choose one of these to lose

Say there are two types of unusual, rare washers in the washing machine and they are both equally rare and have the same price. So we both agree that under these conditions they would have the same value..right? Then a manufacturer produces 3 billion of one type so the price becomes very low. If you were asked which one you would rather lose, it would be the non rare. If you were asked which one you would rather keep it would be the rare type.

You now have a higher valuation of one washer than another, because 3 billion of the latter type were produced

Edited by Stars
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you replaced the broken washer with a shiney new one and fixed the machine, and the very next day I manufactured a billion more shiney new washers, would the one you fixed the machine with perform any differently?

Would it's 'functionality value' have been altered by the existance of the billion I have made? Or would it add exactly the same (functional) value as before I made a billion more washers?

If said washer is costing £1 at 10 shops though, I'm not going to be going and offering to pay the 11th shop, £11 just because the washer wont work without a resource which is freely available.

Lets examine a scenario - I used to work in a bank branch about 10 years ago.

50 Staff £5 million profit a year - Contribution £100K per employee a year

Other guys worked in shitey branches, and offices didnt make so much business..

Did we go around shouting we should get paid more than the going rate, due our office making whacks more money, no we had more common sense and realised it was not the labour factor that affected the increased profits.

The factor was we were in a richer catchment area, and the mortgage book walked in the door.

Busier with more business, but not due to anyone using any unique talents.

Edited by euan2020
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 415 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.