surplus labor value

SIMPLE EXPLANATION?

"Surplus value" are just words that Marx employed to mean "profit". Let's not forget that when Marx wrote these words he epitomized agricultural and not particularly industrial production. Though his intent may have been obvious to include both. (Btw, he wrote the original book on Surplus Value in 1882/3, Theories of Surplus Value.

Consider this moment in time in the 1880, in the midst of the Industrial Age that was replacing the Agricultural Age in terms of generating income/wealth. (Think also of this present time when the manipulation of information - by means of computing/Internet - is once again doing the same! ;^)

What, I think, Marx was getting at is "fair value", that is the value of produce (created and sold by labor) that is returned to the company (or land owner) - but then not shared (beyond wages) with those who actually produced it. Most of the returned-value (profits) were returned to those owning the means of production, who obtained most of the value returned.

Land is limited, and therefore so is its return in terms of agricultural or mineral exploitation. Marx is saying that ownership is not the only intrinsic value of bringing, for profit, products to a market-economy. I.e., that the production process is owed its "just return" as well.

From there, it is a logical hop, skip and a jump to thinking that therefore the means of production (land, machinery, buildings, factories, energy) should belong to a central government authority that dictates who produces what.

Which is fine as theories go, but practice showed the formula to be very badly inadequate to meeting human needs. Communism turned to socialism - and socialism got around to accepting capital-ownership of the means of production. But with a caveat, which is why it is now called a Social Democracy.

Understanding that caveat is therefore key to understanding Social Democracies. The definition of which consists of these key-words, "to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy".

Within which is the meaning of Social Justice: "justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society". Again, the distribution of wealth (i.e., income that becomes wealth) is not intended to be "equal" but "equitable" (that is, fair and impartial).

Which is a "Concept of Justice" a bit further than just Criminal Justice. In fact, the idea incorporates the rights of citizens to expect that income (that become wealth after taxation) is not equal, but its distribution should be progressively fair. That opportunities are not all equal, but that the personal-contribution to the obtention of goals is rewarded fairly. And thus so also for privileges that should not favor any particular grouping over another.

And, I'll stop there - because if the above is intended as a simple explanation, it also opens up a whole new world of controversy* ....

*Aka, "can of worms"?

 

In debate, no one is obliged to respond uniquely to "a post" - especially if they are expanding upon the subject.

 

You conflate education and certification of secondary education attendance. Either way, I disagree that it is a societal obligation or benefit to provide payment for more subpar education/premium indoctrination centers. Also, I am not a fan of social democracy. I disagree with its premise.

 

You are looking at only one of two parts of the Balance of Trade.

And, as I have posted earlier, Industry is a very minor percentage of jobs in America today as does industrial trade. Many high-tech companies do product R&D, but Manufacturing has long since been exported - for instance, over the past 10/15 years the production of sophisticated products such as smartphones and laptop computers. Not all, however.

The US from still builds, for instance, commercial jet aircraft or a great many other not-so-high-tech products - but the US does so competitively. It all depends upon the nature of the product and how well it adapts or not to exportation. If it does, its production is surely exported.

My point is that Industry is not all bad, just not all good as it has been in the past.

So let's not forget that our "trade balance" includes also financial services that are hugely positive to the country and are counted as "intangible trade services". Another is consulting or even manufacturing plant design and operations - both high value-added services professions.

Both balances are separately accounted since data sources differ. But, together they are the Balance of Trade, or Trade Balance, and are the final analysis worth considering ...

 

As you like.

Mark Twain: Differences of opinion make for horse races ...

 

That was short & pointless, the problem of the Ghetto, you would need to substitute illegal Drugs for the rubber stamp business, nobody in the Ghetto is encouraging youngsters to start their own LEGAL business of Any kind.

Gangs and Drug related illegal business does not count.

 

his communist appeal is based upon using govt to steal on behalf of the poor. It killed 120 million, slowly.

- - - Updated - - -

yes your father was conservative and taught you well while ghettos are liberal hell holes.

 

We have to be kindly toward the French. They have the per capita income of Arkansas about our poorest state, half of them sided with the Nazis during WW2, and when we liberated them we let them think it was their doing so they would not feel so humiliated.

 

Your disgust of me (or what I write) does not mind me in the least.

The fact of the matter is that I am a Yank who lives in France, and speaks their language. I am not French and have just voted for Hillary, because Bernie was no longer available.

Bernie is a Social Democrat, as I am. He learned most of what he knows about Social Democracy in Europe.

Seems like he did OK this last time around in the primaries. But not good enough. Fundamental change, after all, takes time. People have to learn politics and then relearn it every 20/30 years.

And for people like you, who never seem to learn - I wish that the Dork gets elected. Consummate Disaster is the only way some people can understand reality ...

 

While I have to admit your spiel on Social Democracy really sounded good, looking back at the fundamental changes that elected politicians have imposed upon us over the last century, or just since my birth, it would appear that the vast majority of people can be bought, and cheaply considering the number who are willing to live in or near poverty, asking only for government to be more responsible for their needs and wants.

And yes the Dork probably will get elected, even though the FBI has reopened the email investigation. I agree, it will probably require total economic collapse before enough people will take the necessary action to rein in our governments, Federal, State, and in many cases local as well.

 

Quite right - despite the ramblings in any Internet blog, the only fact that matters is the vote next Teusday. I could really care less, even about the French vote for PoF (President of France) next year.

Btw, my son goes to university in France for $850 a year (plus room 'n board) and my wife just had a minor operation that would have cost $2500 (she actually priced it whilst there) in the US for, uh, nothing here in France. And, also, btw, French healthcare is one of the best in the world - according to this world-wide study done some years ago (2000): World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000

Ours is clearly the most expensive, but not the best for all its people (given that we also have a life-span 3 years less than comparatively others):
View attachment 46508

Go figure ...

 

This is perplexing. In Europe the people don't take any chit. They get out "en mass" and make their demands known, and government responds with concessions/compliance.

 

What do you find perplexing about it? There is strength in numbers, and it is those who make up a portion of the middle class who have become the minority, while both the poorest and the wealthiest have either the time and/or the money to make demands on the government which generally do result in concessions/compliance and benefits to them. Divide and conquer.

 

The "minority Middle-class", as you put it, is not the least bit minor when it comes to voting. The upper-class who earn more than $100K per year (in family), and account for almost half of all the income generated are far lesser in numbers. Altogether both groups are about 10% of the population with the filthy-rich being about 0.1%.

So, if the middle-class American electorate should wake up and take the bull by the horns, it would not be voting for the Dork who has never held either a political office in his life, or (for all his braggadocio) never been a "superb businessman" given the fact that he had seven bankruptcies in his name. He made all of his money in real-estate and, granted, he is "successful" - but neither does that qualify him alone to be PotUS. Other, far more important qualities prevail. (And Hillary has those key qualities in spades.)

If the Dork is elected, therefore, the American people will have democratically chosen exactly the sort of leader they deserve - a real-estate developer.

No more nor any less - since their key qualification for the job seems to be financial success ...

 

100% wrong of course! Trump wants to restore the middle class by creating 30 million jobs at higher wages by shipping 30 million illegal Democrats home, and, he wants to further restore the middle class by ending the liberal policies(taxes unions deficits) that shipped 15 million jobs off shore. Do you understand?

Hillary merely wants to preside of the failing status quo.

 

1+1=2 lifespan is affected by many other things than the health care system. Do you understand. Please try to make sense

 

Too many people think of Labor as "just another input overhead cost", whilst failing to understand the duality of all of us. We are both Workers and Consumers - and if we don't work, we don't consume.

And if we work more for less pay, we consume even less. There must be a just-equilibrium between the labor input and the income obtained (that's the very foundation of our existence).

At the right equilibrium it's a win-win situation for both both Supply and Demand off goods/services ...

 

7 or 11 or 30 million illegals are not going to be deported by anyone! Even if you could magically make all of them disappear overnight, most of the jobs they hold are low paying jobs, jobs that don't pay income taxes, jobs that most Americans won't do. There is no way possible to magically increase all the wages for all of these illegal jobs so there is not going to be higher wages. Where will you find 30 million Americans to take these low paying jobs? In order to create 30 million middle class jobs this requires increasing, and sustaining, GDP by about $3 trillion per year...can you identify the impetus for this to happen? Just doing the math, adding 30 million to 30 million indicates 60 million Americans are ready, willing, and qualified to go to work...I don't think so. Corporations do what they must do in order to keep the doors open, make profits, grow the company, and satisfy shareholders; Trump and/or government cannot force corporations to change their current business model! You cannot force corporations to bring back to the US the 15 million jobs you mention that went offshore! You demand higher and higher wages yet the very reason most corporations are offshore is because it costs too much to do business in the USA...

 

we deport millions now and it is not national policy. If it is national policy millions more will be deported and millions of new jobs will be created with huge upward pressure on wages. Hilary wants to do the opposite!

 

as deportaions rise and welfare entitlements are cut, wages will rise dramatically for those who are willing to work. Those not willing to work will starve or mooch off of friends and family. 1+1=2. Hillarys dream is open borders and most Americans dependent on crippling welfare and thus voting for Democrats. Its a sick vision. Power for the sake of power.

 

I was referring to your statement: "I agree, it will probably require total economic collapse before enough people will take the necessary action to rein in our governments"

My view that it is the wealthy who get concessions and who "own" the government notwithstanding, I guess the American people have been lulled to sleep by a government that, for about 70 years, has been largely benevolent as well as successful at dividing and brainwashing the populace. And consequently, we now find many people disinterested in politics, disengaged from politics, and view it as a spectator sport, and a remainder who is largely divided against each other.

In such an environment we find a public unwilling to get out there and make their views known such as Europeans do. And until we learn to unite and take action as they do, we will continue to get politics and policies that we know are detrimental yet seem impossible to change. And economic collapse would likely make a huge difference in this.

 

but we know thats very very stupid given that the top 1% pay 44% of all federal taxes( more than any other country), corporations are subject to highest corporate tax in the world, and the poor get trillions in welfare entitlements each year. 1+1=2

 

No, the privileged do not have to work to consume. They simply use their privileges to take without working or contributing in any other way.

Part of capitalism is taking without earning.

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. But just own the lake, and he feeds you for a lifetime.

 

That is just baldly false.

The poor number roughly an order of magnitude more than the rich (~10% vs 1%), but are given roughly an order of magnitude less (~4% of GDP vs ~40%).