Not at all, productive capital is made from creating something. Passive, like a dividend requires no production of goods and services. It only requires capital to make an investment.
" Passive, like a dividend requires no production of goods and services.
It does. Without revenue form sale of good and services, there is no dividend to pay. seriously man wtf
True I meant the person collecting the dividend doesn't necessarily have to do the production.
They are doing the production by virtue of their savings. This is an IQ 130 thing, so I don't expect niggers to get it even after explaining it (you can increase production by past behavior), wasn't in this thread? fuck you nigger faggot useless wigger shit may the jews kike you
it's the same thing with extra steps. the onyl difference is commie's reactions. Somewhere along the continuum it goes from ooh a family saved up to feed themselves while producing a tool to reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee usury
The production of capital requires mutliple elements and when these elements are seperated eveyr dipshit from the ceiling starts reeing about one of them.
Here you go wigger:
This is a reply to what I would call a natsoc, who is quite biased in favor of labor income and against some other forms of income which I think he refers to as ''usury''. Is there any point to making a more elaborate example involving actual usury or can he see it from this one?
Here's how property income is earned:
Assume an economy with no capital and only labour. All production comes from labour.
Yes, labor originally created the first capital, but the labor only did it because he (Mr.A) could own the value of the capital's productive capacity, which is the value of the capital. If Mr.A sells some or all of this capital, say 80%, for food while he works to build it, then the person who provided the food (which he also labored for in this instance) earned it. Now, if this capital good doubles the farm-yield/labour of a standard farm, both Mr.A and Mr.B own 20% and 80% of a standard farm's yield, the other 100% of the standard farm yield goes to the labor of that capital enhanced farm (which now produces 200%), agree so far?
Now, this can be more simple and more complicated, but the principle is the same. Imagine Mr.A SAVED food himself and provided himself the equivalent of Mr.B's previous productive contribution to the building of the capital. Now Mr.A owns 100% of the capital.
Imagine now, that Mr.A, who owned a standard farm, chooses to retire. The economy no longer gets the production from his farm and his labor (which he previously worked with), but still has the same production because one of the standard farms now produces twice as much. Mr.A is no longer providing labor. His contribution is purely from capital. Everyone gets the same food as before (including Mr.A). Is Mr.A a parasite? Fucking tell me.
Now, as for how it can be more complicated. The function of labor, savings and capital goods, can be traded and subdivided endlessly, the savings can come from thousands of people in the village, and thousands of people in the village can be involved in producing the capital, and thousands of people in the village can be equity holder's of that capital's income.
Furthermore, money can be introduced to track ownership (of savings), but the fundamentals don't change.
Two things will happen: either you will correct your ways or I will update by an increment the justice of slavery upon those useless good for nothing else fuckign human slaves, genocide preferable.
(post is archived)