Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Price of labor has not been a means of production since when?
Oh I don't know, maybe forever.
From Wikipedia:
be careful of the attributions above
Classical economics distinguishes between three factors of production
which are used in the production of goods:
€ Land or natural resources - naturally-occurring goods such as soil
and minerals. The payment for land is rent.
****€ Labor - human effort used in production. The payment for labor
is a wage.**** (emphasis mine.
€ Capital goods - human-made goods (or MEANS OF PRODUCTION) which
are used in the production of other goods. These include machinery,
tools and buildings. In a general sense, the payment for capital is
called interest.
I would take the word of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart
Mill over that of Wikipedia. But I could be wrong.
And the above says exactly what I quoted from Wikipedia. From you:
"
Capital goods - human-made goods (or means of production) which
are used in the production of other goods. These include machinery,
tools and buildings. In a general sense, the payment for capital is
called interest.
"
I emphasized and capitalized "MEANS OF PRODUCTION" after all that's
where the disagreement lies. Note that "factors of production" are not
the same as "means of production". If you look at the Wikipedia "Means
of production" entry you'll find it also discusses factors of
production. Note that your quote (I presume it is a quote from
somewhere) supports my position. IOW it's you who are apparently
unwilling to accept the word of Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John
Stuart Mill (presuming that you're quoting them accurately which I
doubt).
I love it when people deride Wikipedia and then fail to note that most
of the entries (and all relevant ones in the case of "Means of
production") are supported by textbooks, original scientific works,
and the like. It's not exactly "Fox news says".
However I suspect that your quote is from nothing original as the
entry into common parlance of "means of production" probably did not
occur until Karl Marx who of course is a far better source for
something that is related to socialism than your three above.
snip
I'll repeat the exchange from the previous post:
One would have thought that a rabid capitalist like yourself would
understand that what the drug companies do or propose is the socialist
way: eventually make everyone pay the same for their drugs!
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?
And reply slightly differently: Since "Classical economics..." as
asserted by Kurt Ullman.
I guess you've been hung by your own jockstrap ... or something like
that.