Don't step on dividends | Poal: Say what you want.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (19).

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

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.

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.

parent
link