Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Only just a little somewhat significant correction as some of you
delight in accusing me of being clueless:
Socialism as both a political and economic system focuses only on
the means of production and not the price.
Nonsense. Don't you scream "socialism" when the government tries to
raise the minimum wage (price of labor)?
Price of labor has not been a means of production since when?
Oh I don't know, maybe forever.
From Wikipedia:
"
Means of production refers to physical, non-human inputs used in
production—the factories, machines, and tools used to produce
wealth[1] — along with both infrastructural capital and natural
capital. This includes the classical factors of production minus
financial capital and minus human capital. They include two broad
categories of objects: instruments of labour (tools, factories,
infrastructure, etc.) and subjects of labour (natural resources and
raw materials). People operate on the subjects of labour, using the
instruments of labour, to create a product; or, stated another way,
labour acting on the means of production creates a product.[2] When
used in the broad sense, the "means of production" includes the "means
of distribution" which includes stores, banks, and railroads.[3]
"
Gaining market share doesn't have to be "paid for" elsewhere if you
don't sell below marginal cost. You still make a profit it's just less
per unit but the extra volume makes greater overall profit.
So you lose money on every unit, but make it up in volume (grin)?
No, you don't lose money on every unit. You gain, just less per unit.
What I explained above (the dead horse paragraph) is classic Marketing
101 leavened with a little of Cost Accounting 102. I'm not going to
give you or Trader 4F an entire course on the subject.
Since you did not recognize labor as being part of the means of
production, I am not thinking we are at a great loss.
See above.