Europe submits voluntarily

[Jokodo]

Given all the above, do you consider 'labour' as a good or service or commodity?

The way I understand it (and I'm not an economist, Marxian or otherwise), services aren't a distinct category for the theory - they're goods that happen to have no physical shape but are equal to other goods in all other respects. But yes, labour is a good and a commodity - there clearly is a market for it.

Or are they human beings trying to do their honest or dishonest (sometimes murderous), individual or collective, private or national, even racist, "best" as they see it.

False dilemma. Human beings, in any economic arrangement, are for the most part trying to do their best for themselves in the world as they find it, whether stone-age nomadic hunter gatherers or 21st century salaried employees. That's pretty much independent of any theory. The best the former can do is pick up or hunt food and share any surplus with the other gang members in order to build up reputation, because it would spoil anyway if they hoarded it and so the others won't forget about them when they or less fortunate. If no-one in the gang is fortunate, or if they haven't built up enough reputation, they die; alternatively, they can try to steel from the other gang members, but if caught, they might also die. The best the latter can do is sell their labour at its current exchange value, which tends to converge, over time, towards the cost of producing a laborer of his stature and education and keeping him content and productive.

In other words, while both are trying to make the best out of their lives, only in capitalism this means, one ends up selling his labour as a commodity on the market, as a tool for others to produce, in conjunction with other, inanimate and even immaterial tools, new value.

And many now realise that the whole economic system is a Ponzi scheme with the devil take the hindmost as the underlying "principle."

How is this related to theories of value?

 

[4321lynx]

The way I understand it (and I'm not an economist, Marxian or otherwise), services aren't a distinct category for the theory - they're goods that happen to have no physical shape but are equal to other goods in all other respects. But yes, labour is a good and a commodity - there clearly is a market for it.



False dilemma. Human beings are for the most part trying to do their best for themselves in the world as they find it, whether stone-age nomadic hunter gatherers or 21st century salaried employees. That's pretty much independent of any theory. The best the former can do is pick up or hunt food and share any surplus with the other gang members in order to build up reputation, because it would spoil anyway if they hoarded it and so the others won't forget about them when they or less fortunate. If no-one in the gang is fortunate, or if they haven't built up enough reputation, they die; alternatively, they can try to steel from the other gang members, but if caught, they might also die. The best the latter can do is sell their labour at its current exchange value, which tends to converge, over time, towards the cost of producing a laborer of his stature and education and keeping him content and productive.

In other words, while both are trying to make the best out of their lives, only one ends up selling his labour as a commodity on the market, as a tool for others to produce, in conjunction with other, inanimate and even immaterial tools, new value.

And many now realise that the whole economic system is a Ponzi scheme with the devil take the hindmost as the underlying "principle."

How is this related to theories of value?

The question is what have theories of value to do with real life? Scientific theories describe the universe, or try to, then plan experiments to test things. Economics describes the world on its own definition of @science@ , and a dismal pseudoscience it is, and then tries to predict how to change things with the intensity of a religion. To see the results, just look around you.

 

[Jokodo]

The question is what have theories of value to do with real life? Scientific theories describe the universe, or try to, then plan experiments to test things. Economics describes the world on its own definition of @science@ , and a dismal pseudoscience it is, and then tries to predict how to change things with the intensity of a religion. To see the results, just look around you.

I'm pretty sure neither of us will see the results of casting the Marxian theory of value into policies by looking around where we live

I'm also pretty sure that relying on a wrong theory of value (to the extent that it even leads to different recommendations than the competitors) doesn't come anywhere near the top ten problems of the former East Bloc. If you want to establish that kind of causal connection, you have to be a bit more explicit in your argumentation.

 

[repoman]

 

[4321lynx]

The question is what have theories of value to do with real life? Scientific theories describe the universe, or try to, then plan experiments to test things. Economics describes the world on its own definition of @science@ , and a dismal pseudoscience it is, and then tries to predict how to change things with the intensity of a religion. To see the results, just look around you.

I'm pretty sure neither of us will see the results of casting the Marxian theory of value into policies by looking around where we live

I'm also pretty sure that relying on a wrong theory of value (to the extent that it even leads to different recommendations than the competitors) doesn't come anywhere near the top ten problems of the former East Bloc. If you want to establish that kind of causal connection, you have to be a bit more explicit in your argumentation.

Who said anything about Marx?

And I meant look around at the world. But never mind.

The problem with the old Eastern Block is that they have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing in the past 80 years. None of them, except for the Czechs, they learnt their lesson early, in the 1930's. We're off-topic here.

 

[Jokodo]

The question is what have theories of value to do with real life? Scientific theories describe the universe, or try to, then plan experiments to test things. Economics describes the world on its own definition of @science@ , and a dismal pseudoscience it is, and then tries to predict how to change things with the intensity of a religion. To see the results, just look around you.

I'm pretty sure neither of us will see the results of casting the Marxian theory of value into policies by looking around where we live

I'm also pretty sure that relying on a wrong theory of value (to the extent that it even leads to different recommendations than the competitors) doesn't come anywhere near the top ten problems of the former East Bloc. If you want to establish that kind of causal connection, you have to be a bit more explicit in your argumentation.

Who said anything about Marx?

And I meant look around at the world. But never mind.

The Labour Theory of Value, while originating with classical liberal economists (in particular Adam Smith) is nowadays mostly associated with Marxian economics ever since the neoclassicists abandoned that part of the Smithian heritage.

 

[Hermit]

Unless the situation has changed since I left Germany, that country has no problem maintaining the standard of living of the retired, regardless of whether the population grows, shrinks or stays steady. About 26% German workers' wages were diverted into their own superannuation fund. This was compulsory. In effect each German citizen provided for their own retirement while they were still of working age, so population growth or shrinkage was irrelevant.

This is of course a gross simplification. I don't know what arrangements were made for the chronically unemployed or handicapped, nor do I know what they were in the case of single-income families, but whatever the system seems to be, it appears to be working satisfactorily. My father retired after we migrated to Australia. Eventually he retired. Between that point and his death 22 years later he received a monthly pension cheque sent from Germany. It was money (and the interest it had earned over the years) he had been obliged to set aside from his earnings himself. In short, Germany seems to have a fully funded pension scheme that is uncoupled from population growth/shrinkage.

 

[angelo]

Unless the situation has changed since I left Germany, that country has no problem maintaining the standard of living of the retired, regardless of whether the population grows, shrinks or stays steady. About 26% German workers' wages were diverted into their own superannuation fund. This was compulsory. In effect each German citizen provided for their own retirement while they were still of working age, so population growth or shrinkage was irrelevant.

This is of course a gross simplification. I don't know what arrangements were made for the chronically unemployed or handicapped, nor do I know what they were in the case of single-income families, but whatever the system seems to be, it appears to be working satisfactorily. My father retired after we migrated to Australia. Eventually he retired. Between that point and his death 22 years later he received a monthly pension cheque sent from Germany. It was money (and the interest it had earned over the years) he had been obliged to set aside from his earnings himself. In short, Germany seems to have a fully funded pension scheme that is uncoupled from population growth/shrinkage.

How will that provide for the over 60% of immigrants who never work, or receive a salary therefore not paying a cent, or mark into any super fund?

 

[bilby]

Unless the situation has changed since I left Germany, that country has no problem maintaining the standard of living of the retired, regardless of whether the population grows, shrinks or stays steady. About 26% German workers' wages were diverted into their own superannuation fund. This was compulsory. In effect each German citizen provided for their own retirement while they were still of working age, so population growth or shrinkage was irrelevant.

This is of course a gross simplification. I don't know what arrangements were made for the chronically unemployed or handicapped, nor do I know what they were in the case of single-income families, but whatever the system seems to be, it appears to be working satisfactorily. My father retired after we migrated to Australia. Eventually he retired. Between that point and his death 22 years later he received a monthly pension cheque sent from Germany. It was money (and the interest it had earned over the years) he had been obliged to set aside from his earnings himself. In short, Germany seems to have a fully funded pension scheme that is uncoupled from population growth/shrinkage.

How will that provide for the over 60% of immigrants who never work, or receive a salary therefore not paying a cent, or mark into any super fund?

That's easy; they get paid from the magic pretend unicorn money.

Of course, you might counter that that magic pretend unicorn money doesn't exist.

But then, nor do the over 60% of immigrants who never work, or receive a salary.

 

[angelo]

Perhaps as usual with me, I worded that wrong. Much more than 60% of muzzie immigrants have not nor are likely to contribute to their upkeep.

 

[Hermit]

Perhaps as usual with me, I worded that wrong. Much more than 60% of muzzie immigrants have not nor are likely to contribute to their upkeep.

Just like 60% of Muslim immigrants in Australia, right?

 

[angelo]

Perhaps as usual with me, I worded that wrong. Much more than 60% of muzzie immigrants have not nor are likely to contribute to their upkeep.

Just like 60% of Muslim immigrants in Australia, right?

No, that's not right! Around 80% [ a conservative figure] of so called " refugees" which in reality are just economic immigrants looking for welfare states, are still on welfare benefits 5 years after being given asylum!

 

[Jokodo]

Perhaps as usual with me, I worded that wrong. Much more than 60% of muzzie immigrants have not nor are likely to contribute to their upkeep.

You didn't word it wrong. You made up a claim out of thin air without bothering to fact check.

It remains wrong irrespective of wording.

 

[Hermit]

Perhaps as usual with me, I worded that wrong. Much more than 60% of muzzie immigrants have not nor are likely to contribute to their upkeep.

Just like 60% of Muslim immigrants in Australia, right?

No, that's not right! Around 80% [ a conservative figure] of so called " refugees" which in reality are just economic immigrants looking for welfare states, are still on welfare benefits 5 years after being given asylum!

You wouldn't perchance have a link to a reputable source for that figure, would you?

 

[Jokodo]

No, that's not right! Around 80% [ a conservative figure] of so called " refugees" which in reality are just economic immigrants looking for welfare states, are still on welfare benefits 5 years after being given asylum!

You wouldn't perchance have a link to a reputable source for that figure, would you?

Are you implying that angelo is not a reputable source?

Even if it were true, though, that 60% of Muslim immigrants still aren't contributing to their upkeep 5 years after arriving, it could still be the case that they're a net gain to society. Especially keeping in mind that a full 100% of native borns are not yet contributing to their upkeep 5 years after arriving.

 

[Derec]

Even if it were true, though, that 60% of Muslim immigrants still aren't contributing to their upkeep 5 years after arriving, it could still be the case that they're a net gain to society.

How exactly would the Islamic mass migrants be a "net gain"?

Europe really doesn't need that kind of "cultural enrichment" ...

Especially keeping in mind that a full 100% of native borns are not yet contributing to their upkeep 5 years after arriving.

So these adult mass migrants are so useless you have to compare them to preschoolers to make your point?

 

[bilby]

Even if it were true, though, that 60% of Muslim immigrants still aren't contributing to their upkeep 5 years after arriving, it could still be the case that they're a net gain to society.

How exactly would the Islamic mass migrants be a "net gain"?

Probably by simply not being the weird caricatures you keep making them out to be with your childish pictures of small numbers of extremists.

 

[Derec]

Probably by simply not being the weird caricatures you keep making them out to be with your childish pictures of small numbers of extremists.

Small numbers?
97% of Afghans support Sharia law, and a huge number of Afghans are flooding into Europe as we speak.

 

[Jokodo]

Probably by simply not being the weird caricatures you keep making them out to be with your childish pictures of small numbers of extremists.

Small numbers?
97% of Afghans support Sharia law, and a huge number of Afghans are flooding into Europe as we speak.

One outdated piece of information, and one logical non-sequitur.

"Huge numbers of Afghans" are not currently flooding Europe by any stretch. The largest number of arrivals was from late 2015 to mid-2016. That's almost two years ago. The numbers since have dropped to 1/10 to 1/5 what they were, if that.

"97% of Afghans support Sharia law", even if true (and I'll note you haven't provided a source) does not imply that 97%, or any other specific number, of Afghans in Europe support Sharia law, unless of course 100% of Afghans are in Europe. As long as no more than 3% of Afghans are in Europe, it's even compatible with 0% of European Afghans supporting Sharia law.

Also, do you happen to know the wording of the question, if that's a statistic you didn't just make up?

 

[Jokodo]

Especially keeping in mind that a full 100% of native borns are not yet contributing to their upkeep 5 years after arriving.

So these adult mass migrants are so useless you have to compare them to preschoolers to make your point?

Do you understand a conditional statement?

IF they are as "useless" as angelo says they are (which we have no reason to believe, but assuming it temporarily for the sake of the argument), THEN they would still be more useful than natives.

A 20 year old immigrant who comes to stay, and whose education is so lacking that it takes ten years before he becomes a net contributor, and who arguably has a lower life expectancy due to to poorer childhood conditions (say 75 instead of 80 years), will be working 35/55 years he's to live in the country. A native born who'll enter the workforce between 20 and 25 and live an average of 80 years will be working 40/80 - 45/80 of those years.