-
The Politicization Crusade
May 8, 2013 | 56 comments
-
Deceiver in Chief
March 20, 2013 | 204 comments
-
Chronicle of Liberal Disasters
February 25, 2013 | 70 comments
-
President Obama’s Minimum Wage Delusion
February 14, 2013 | 203 comments
-
The Democrats’ Rough Re-entry Into Reality
October 19, 2012 | 148 comments
The Obama Watch
Obama’s Labor Theory of Value
The Marxian underpinnings of “you didn’t build that.”
Beyond being infuriating and insulting, President Obama’s now notorious “you didn’t build that” speech probably left many people puzzled. It is so foreign to how most Americans think they might have wondered where such thinking comes from.
Whether or not you think it’s accurate to call Obama a Marxist, his perspective on how the economy works is Marxian through and through. More specifically, it is a reflection of what’s referred to as Marx’s “labor theory of value.”
That theory is defined in the Dictionary of Economics as “[t]he worth of a product or service is in proportion to the labor employed to generate it.”
Economists not under the spell of Marxism consider the labor theory of value to be a convoluted mess. Marx himself had great difficulty papering over the logical gaps and contradictions of the theory. One obvious problem is that “labor” is not a homogeneous resource. Furthermore, it is not the only scarce resource necessary for the production of practically every product or service.
The question of how relative prices are determined is still a central question in economics. “Price theory” is what comprises most of microeconomics.
Today the mainstream conclusion about what determines relative prices is that they result from the interaction of “supply and demand.” In the context of price theory, supply and demand are like file drawers where numerous factors can be organized and analyzed.
The price of any product is affected by the quantity of all the resources necessary to produce it — labor, energy, land, information, time, for example. Marx’s position was that only one of these resources mattered, i.e., labor. Furthermore, he devoted none of his attention to the demand side of price determination. It’s as though he tried to design a pair of scissors using a single blade and, in fact, only a small piece of a single blade. I don’t think that it’s an exaggeration to say that no economist, other than true-believer Marxists, thinks that the labor theory of value makes any economic sense or is useful in understanding how an economy actually works.
In his classic textbook on the history of economic thought, William Fellner poses the following question about the labor theory of value and offers an explanation:
What function does the theory perform in the Marxian system, and why do contemporary Marxists continue to cling to it? The answer, we suggest, is that a simple and sweeping doctrine of exploitation is the essence of Marxism as a creed, and that it is impossible to obtain a doctrine of exploitation as simple and sweeping as is the Marxian from premises other than the “worker’s right to the whole produce.” Marxism as a creed is founded on the idea that all income going to the owners of wealth results from exploitation. The Marxian creed requires the exploitation doctrine as its foundation. (Emphasis in original.) — William Fellner, Modern Economic Analysis
A belief in the labor theory of value is what explains the hostility toward profits that is so prevalent on the left. If labor is 100 percent responsible for the creation of value, profit is theft. Profits are only possible if labor is exploited and only if capitalists get what’s not rightfully theirs. Likewise, property is theft, as are various forms of capital. Marx is the inventor of the word “capitalism.” His turgid three volume magnum opus is titled Das Kapital.
In countless ways Marxism is an intellectual mess. Theoretically it makes no sense. In practice it has led not to utopia, but to dystopia. The most horrific and repressive regimes in the world today — North Korea, Cuba, and Zimbabwe, for example — are Marxian in theory and practice.
Nevertheless, a Marxian view of the world continues to be popular on the left. Obama’s speech reflects his deeply held belief that business owners do not deserve the share of income and wealth they receive. All value ought to go to the workers. Any other outcome is the result of “the exploitation of humans by humans.” According to Marx, that’s what happens under capitalism and will continue to happen until private property rights are abolished. Only then can true equality be achieved.
It’s important to remember that even bankrupt ideas can be popular over long periods of time. Two other leading examples are Malthusianism and Keynesianism. Their predictions and policy prescriptions have proven wrong countless times, yet as doctrines they still hold wide appeal. Malthus’s Essay on the Principle of Population was published in 1798 and Keynes’ General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money was published in 1936. The failure of the Democrats’ massive stimulus spending ought to be enough to toss Keynesianism into the dumpster of ideas that sound good but turn out to be disasters when applied to the real world.
Marx fully expected capitalism to collapse within a few years after the publication of The Communist Manifesto in 1848. V. I. Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, published in 1916, was essentially an attempt to explain why capitalism still existed. By then Marxists fully expected that capitalism would be long gone.
One thing that J.M. Keynes got right was his understanding of the power of ideology. In the final paragraph of The General Theory he wrote, “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood.… Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
Whether or not Barack Obama is a Marxist depends on how you define Marxist. Most everyone who acts like a Marxist reacts strongly if called a Marxist. There are probably a hundred Marxists for every one who admits to being one. The birth certificate I would like to see is one that would show where Obama’s ideology was born.
About the Author
Ron Ross Ph.D. is an economist who lives in Arcata, California. He is the author of The Unbeatable Market. Reach him at rossecon@gmail.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (83) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ron Ross
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/13/obamas-labor-theory-of-value
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The End of the Castros?
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Inside the Gates of Eden
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Nancy in NC| 8.13.12 @ 7:30AM
Excellent article. I can't decide if Obama is a Marxist or Fascist.
Ryan| 8.13.12 @ 8:44AM
I think he's using fascist means (ie, corporatism) to accomplish Marxist ends.
JD| 8.13.12 @ 12:38PM
That's all fascism ever was - a more subtle means to Marxist ends. There's no difference.
PolishKnight| 8.13.12 @ 1:01PM
Obama's party tossed out the working class laborer along with white males back in the 1960's or even before then. It can be argued that except for a few starry eyed idealists, most of them including Marx himself were largely just using the ideology as window dressing for a power grab and to paper over what is ALWAYS an ethnic cleansing agenda combined with corporate cronyism.
c. j. acworth| 8.13.12 @ 7:38AM
Well, dad always used to say that if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you can call it a duck. Or a Marxist.
allanius | 8.13.12 @ 7:42AM
He's a cultural Marxist. I doubt he's read Kapital, but the way he talks is the way his peeps at the university talk--almost all of them. It's something in the water.
DTOM| 8.13.12 @ 8:02AM
The Labor theory forgets the value that intelligence brings to the value of something.
It takes a lot more energy and power to dig a ditch with a shovel than it does to perform brain surgery (done right, not in Communist countries, like say Cambodia where they routinely used shovels to perform 'brain surgery' as murder).
The labor theory ignores the value of intelligence and mental effort. Sort of like modern children who think that all intellectual property (music, videos, software) should be free....
Uh..oh
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 8:27AM
First - the President was talking about all the people and infrastructure that are available in this country to help someone build a business. But he was referring the roads and bridges that "you didn't build that". This is just a typical right wing spinology to make a right wing shock factor.
Second, the President isn't Marxist, socialist, communist or any other than Capitalist. He is not a laissez-faire Capitalist where anything goes - that is all.
Romney/Ryan are heartless Godless Ayn Rand Anarchists. Ryan prays at the altar of Ayn Rand, the Atheist. Strange for a supposed Catholic, huh?
Otherwise, this article is so much theoretical mumbo-jumbo - I'm just saying.
Ryan| 8.13.12 @ 8:45AM
Targeted bailouts aren't capitalist. They're corporatist.
CJW| 8.13.12 @ 9:21AM
Purpie got his talking points to attack Ryan from the DNC.
Obama not a socialist?
Ryan an atheist?
Romney an anarchist?
Do you even know the meaning of any of these words, idiot?
You are desperate, moron, Romney will win by a landslide.
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 10:30AM
I do know the meaning - do you know how they apply?
What is socialism?
What is atheism?
What is an anarchist?
Do YOU know? And, how they do or do not apply ?
CJW| 8.13.12 @ 11:33AM
Please explain what YOU mean, purpie, since you raised these issues?
DTOM| 8.13.12 @ 11:47AM
CJ,
You may have to wait for Purp's answer - the Soros fax network has been really jammed up because ot the Ryan announcement and it may take a day or two for them to get it through to Purp....
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 6:04PM
I have no need to explain to someone that calls me an idiot. Look it up yourself and you can surmise what is meant. Otherwise, I guess you'll just stay in the dark.
spike59| 8.14.12 @ 5:56AM
purp, when people call you an idiot, it's not meant as an insult; rather, a definition....
HBealeJr| 8.13.12 @ 4:32PM
I think Purp is building a great case for why we need to split off part of the country into "The United States of Stupid".
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 6:05PM
Oh, because YOU have all the answers? Why is it that just 50 years ago your answers were considered crazy talk? Any reason why NOW you have the answers and you're not considered crazy?
CJW| 8.13.12 @ 6:36PM
We hurt purpie's feelings so he found a reason to not explain what he cannot explain. Stop posting idiotic stupid comments and I won't call you an idiot.
Drunken Sailor| 8.13.12 @ 9:52AM
So Purp, the only reason your business was a success is because the goverment built roads you payed for?
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 10:37AM
No, that's not the only reason, and that's Obama's point - no one does it alone - not even Michael Phelps. You are responsible for making what you can of the opportunities and talents you're given. Mostly by hard work and perserverance. But, you don't do it alone, you are not an island, and without the roads, the schools, the internet, whatever you couldn't do it.
Try starting a business in Somalia. It's such a ridiculous idea, isn't it? Why is that? Because the government doesn't provide basic needs to even think about doing it.
A very successful Chinese entrepreneur was written about in Forbes last week, and altho he has been successful, he say Steve Jobs woulld not have created Apple in China. It wasn't possible in China. Why is that?
It matters what the government provides, it matters what system of government you have. It isn't YOU just by yourself.
So get over it. You aren't out in the OLD WEST fighting on your own, by yourself, shooting what you eat and defending against certain death with your six shooter all by yourself.
Marie| 8.13.12 @ 11:55AM
I almost fell out of my chair when I read your response. Didn't people build businesses waaaay back 100 years ago without those nice blacktop roads (that were paid for by the private sector)? There isn't a "good" business atmosphere in Somalia because they are living at the bottom of Maslow's pyramid. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the USA is in a state of an economic mess because our government is living at the top of Maslow's pyramid instead of letting the private sector sort it out. Everyone is treated equal when they really are not equal.
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 3:37PM
Of course, they had different infrastructure then, naturally, and then didn't build anything all by themselves then either. Or during the Roman Empire, or during Henry VIII's time. Never all alone. Primarily on your own, by never all alone.
It isn't government only and it isn't business only - it's a partnership between the two. Especially in the modern world.
We compete in a world now where governments are our competitors, not just other private business.
Drunken Sailor| 8.13.12 @ 4:28PM
Careful Purp, you almost told the truth.
"We compete in a world now where governments are our competitors"
You simply forgot to mention we are competing against our own goverment as well.
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 6:08PM
"You simply forgot to mention we are competing against our own goverment as well." - No just you people that don't know any better. You just believe a false mythology that sounds good, but isn't reality. But, it's okay. Medicare, Social Security, and Unemployment Insurances will all be there if and when you need them. You don't have to be grateful. But you should be.
effinayright| 8.13.12 @ 6:38PM
Purp, you are offering us a mindless truism, something humans have known ever since they were hunter/gatherers. Yes, people need people.
The POINT is, saying that "government" is necessary for a person's success doesn't explain why some governments don't yield wealthy and healthy free citizens. "Government" obviously isn't a sufficient condition for encouraging innovation and economic success; if it were, how to explain those who fail in life? Feudalism and monarchy were forms of government, were they not? Did either create the circumstances for their "subjects" to thrive? Notice that word "subjects", as opposed to "citizens"? Did Soviet or Cuban communism let people thrive?
Sorry, but it's the kind of government that matters, and the kind Baraka wants is one that will not only stifle innovation, but will use that "you didn't build that" as a justification for sucking profits from business to "share the wealth".
DTOM| 8.13.12 @ 12:00PM
So Purp, if Mike Phelps didn't swim all those races, who did? Why isn't there someone faster than Phelps? Some communist, maybe? Surely there are more communists helping their swimmers?
Funny when Standard Oil was started there wasn't an internet, there weren't any paved roads...
The "you didn't build it" is an asinine comment-its only purpose is to disrespect people who have had a vision, worked to make it real, and been lucky and persistent enough to make it work.
This has a little brother: the term "anal" which some people use to describe some of the people they work with. It is always applied to those who do their homework, get in on time, listen to what is said, do what there supposed to, and are generally hardworking and prepared. So when somebody calls somebody else "anal" they disrespect themselves and unwittingly compliment those they try to disparage.
And, Purp, what America provided was FREEDOM, you moron, Freedom. Which means staying the hell out of the way. Which is exactly NOT what CHINA and Obama are doing to entrepreneurs.
You really don't know anything, do you?
DTOM
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 1:39PM
Gee, how did we get FREEDOM? Magically... ?
Drunken Sailor| 8.13.12 @ 3:32PM
From a rag-tag group of Tea Partiers that decide to overthrow a overbearing goverment. Wasn't until much later we actually had a goverment.
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 3:42PM
That is correct. By consent of the governed, so we exist as a government. We didn't and don't do it alone.
Drunken Sailor| 8.13.12 @ 4:31PM
Re-read the post doofus. At the time we decided to overthrow that oppresive goverment (England) we were not even a nation let alone have a goverment. No goverment does not equal consent of the governed.
Ryan must have you to flustered to not even follow simple logic.
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 6:10PM
Interestly, Drunk Boy - those are Ryan's exact words on Saturday. "Consent of the governed" was his phrase he used. And, yes that IS the system of government we have. I'm surprised you don't know that... well, maybe I'm not surprised.
Lance1964| 8.13.12 @ 9:03PM
Since 'we' exist as a government, 'we' did it alone.
effinayright| 8.13.12 @ 7:10PM
We obviously did not get it from government!!!
Perhaps you would like to point to where in the Constitution the government gives us any rights?
It's really disturbing to see a person who doesn't understand that freedom in "the state of nature" came first, and then humans organized themselves into groups with rules and leaders, the latter often self-appointed via force. Gradually, larger populations and land areas came under unified systems of government.
It's only as humans have become more sophisticated in terms of experience that they finally came to adopt a form of government that again promoted freedom and limited government power. The US was first to do that and succeed beyond any prior human experience.
So for you to intimate that "government" is the source of rights and freedoms marks you as one dull tool.
Ryan| 8.13.12 @ 2:34PM
The left doesn't understand the hard work and perseverance part - they honestly believe that it's mostly luck. Check out DU if you don't believe me.
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 3:45PM
Not at all true. The right doesn't have some monopoly on hard work. In fact, most people on welfare are in the Red States.
Some luck is always involved, but fate favors the prepared - hard work and perserverance are primary.
PolishKnight| 8.13.12 @ 4:11PM
I'm chuckling because leftists are bringing the demographics (and cultural customs) of Somalia, and Kenya for that matter, to the USA.
It's probably easier to start a business in Somalia than, say, Detroit or Newark...
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 6:11PM
That's a ridiculous statement ...
effinayright| 8.13.12 @ 6:40PM
If it's ridiculous, why are businesses leaving Detroit and Newark faster than they are opening them?
George S| 8.13.12 @ 9:55AM
The theoretical mumbo-jumbo is easy to explain using two examples:
It takes more labor to hand build a violin than to unearth an uncut diamond, yet Marx's labor theory of value says that the violin should cost more. But that's not the case -- the value of violins is how they sound and the value of diamonds is how they are cut. Their value is realized after the final product is offered for sale.
The second example involves efficiency which, Marxism cannot compute. If I use a pocket knife to chop down a tree and carve it into a box of toothpicks, that could take me a year. Is the value of my labor equivalent to the average salary? That is, who would pay me $45,000 for a box of handmade toothpicks when toothpicks cost 50 cents a box? That is why I would never engage in the labor of making toothpicks by hand.
So you see, the value of a product is not based on its labor to create. It is the other way around -- the value of labor is related to the value of the product produced. That is why Obama is a multi-millionaire from writing two books that he may not have written himself (since those books were grammatically perfect and he cannot correctly use the pronoun "those" instead of "that" when referring to roads and bridges).
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 10:40AM
What? It takes more hand labor to create a violin than to unearth a diamond by hand?
I stopped reading after that.
George S| 8.13.12 @ 11:48AM
It takes months to make a violin; in the same time millions of carats of diamonds are mined. Then there are the ones found without mining -- in streams, volcanic ash, etc. Now you can continue reading.
rockyracoon| 8.13.12 @ 2:59PM
...Not to mention noun and verb agreement
cpurick| 8.13.12 @ 10:03AM
It's convenient to argue that a successful business relied on infrastructure. However, the same infrastructure was also available to everyone else who *didn't* build a successful business at the same time. This would seem to negate the point that those who succeed are responsible for the cost of the infrastructure.
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 3:49PM
What? The point is that it was there, it aided your own abilities and drive to create a business. We have wonderful Universities - but you need to take advantage of them, work hard and succeed. The government helped put them there, and is there to help you with finances, if you need them (or it should be).
You have to seize the opportunities, but the government and many other helps provide those opportunities.
Without the GI Bill, how many WWII vets would have gone to college? They didn't do it alone.
No one ever does. It's just that simple.
spike59| 8.14.12 @ 4:50PM
without the WWII vets, would there even BE a GI Bill????
Marie| 8.13.12 @ 11:45AM
Did you go to college with Obama and hang around the gangs of people that he hung around with? No? Well, there is a person that DID know Obama in college and this guy says that Obama was a Marxist.
DTOM| 8.13.12 @ 12:04PM
Marie;
When Obama ran for Illinois legislature in '03 he was endorsed by "The New Democrat Party" which is a formal political party in Illinois that is absolutely explicit in its open, continuous support of socialism. They endorsed him and he never refuted the endorsement.
You don't have to find an Obama college buddy, you just have to read the Illinois papers....
Drunken Sailor| 8.13.12 @ 12:42PM
Exactly DTOM. It has always been there yet never a peep from MSM.
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 3:50PM
Who cares? And Romney was a prep school bully. So?
George True| 8.13.12 @ 12:25PM
Purp is clueless. He knows so much that just isn't so. By contrast, Dr Ross's book, The Unbeatable Market, is an unsurpassed treatise on how markets actually work in the real world. A brainwashed leftist troll proclaiming Dr Ross's writings to be 'theoretical mumbo jumbo' is as laughably absurd as it is pitiful.
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 3:51PM
There is no "free market".
Certainly not for real necessities in life. Many would die before the free market would decide a drug is not safe or a doctor is a charlatan. Get a clue.
George True| 8.13.12 @ 7:16PM
You are the Clueless One. You come here and spout talking points while having no real understanding of anything.
Lance1964| 8.13.12 @ 9:07PM
Well then, let me ask this: Would you be one to die before the 'market' decided a doctor was a charlatan, or might you see that the patients he has treated before have all died and decide to choose another doctor? That IS the market at work. Sitting around waiting for others to tell you what is good for you and what is bad for you is the fascist-lover in you.
spike59| 8.14.12 @ 5:53AM
many more die before the government decides whether or not a drug is safe
spike59| 8.13.12 @ 1:27PM
But he was referring the roads and bridges that "you didn't build that".
===========================
if true, then he's even dumber than i thought; those EEEEEVILLLLLLLL rich people are the ones who financed the infrastructure, not the 'collect-a-check' base of Obama's support
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 3:52PM
If so, they financed it with tax funds, right?
spike59| 8.14.12 @ 4:52PM
'tax funds' that came overwhelmingly FROM THE RICH
WhiteBikerTrash| 8.13.12 @ 2:45PM
"That" is a singular verb. "Roads and Bridges" are an excellent example of plural nouns, plural plurals. So to use "That" as a descriptor for "Roads and Bridges" is at best poor grammar. It can be better explained as describing the singular "Business" . Do you really think we are that stupid? Or are you saying that the Presidents grammar is that poor?
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 6:14PM
So when "is" is "is" .. aren't you tired of parsing every syllable, when the guy who said explains what he meant and you just keep lying about it to serve your agenda? It's really stupid if that's all you got.
George True| 8.13.12 @ 7:27PM
You have no facts to stand on. You cannot support, with actual empirical evidence, any of the leftist drivel that you spout here. Nor can you refute, with actual facts or evidence, the absolutely immutable laws that inform us that Keynesianism and Socialism are incredibly destructive, and that the so-called 'trickle down' economy is the only economy that actually exists in the real world.
But of course, you are not here to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas. You are here for the purpose of derailing or hijacking the forum for the purpose of PREVENTING a meaningful discussion of the subject at hand.
JimH| 8.13.12 @ 8:37AM
BO’s parents, education, friends and speech has pretty much all been of a Marxian bent. His administration has governed more like that of a corporatist/fascist. The question in my mind is this intentional on his part or is he the tool of others. I don’t think he is really smart enough to be doing this on his own, so I tend to think that he is a figurehead for those whose interests are served by these policies
Kwan| 8.13.12 @ 10:18AM
That's right Obama can be compared to Lester the ventriloquist dummy and Soros is Willie the ventriloquist. Soros pulls a string and Lester I mean Obama flaps his lips. Soros turns a rod and Lester I mean Obama rotates his head. This entire Presidency has been choreographed by Soros and a committee of committed Marxists. Their stated purpose being to achieve "fairness" and "equality" by fundamentally transforming the United States into a Totalitarian Socialist State.
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 10:44AM
Totalitarian and Socialist aren't the same thing, and totally off base.
Fairness and equality are not socialism. Was the Anti-trust Act socialist? What the FDA act socialist? I could go on and on. You're wrong, and you're promoting the right wing mythology about the President. It's bull, but maybe you don't know it.
George S| 8.13.12 @ 12:01PM
U.S.S.R.: "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"
Nazi: "NationalSozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei"
Those two were totalitarian socialist states. Says so, right there on their letterheads.
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 6:16PM
Well if all of Europe is "Socialist", as you all always say - are they Totalitarian? No, they are not.
Totalitarian and Socialist are NOT the same thing.
If you really think the Soviets and the Nazis were socialists, you have no clue.
George True| 8.13.12 @ 12:42PM
Maybe in your world, Purp. But in THIS world, socialism leads inevitably to totalitarianism because socialism goes against human nature, and thus requires intimidation, thuggery, and ultimately force in the form of imprisonment, torture, murder, and mass murder to successfully enforce it.
"Government is not reason, nor eloquence. It is force. And like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master."
Guess who said that, Purp? George Washington. He was making an argument for small, extremely limited central government. THIS is what they intended our government to be, not what it has now become. The socialist, Marxist, and yes, ultimately totalitarian preferences of your false god Obama and his minions are the absolute antithesis of what the founders of this country intended. If you do not like that inconvenient fact, well then......tough. Go live somewhere else. The majority of people in this country would still prefer that we have a government more like what our founders intended, not more like what Karl Marx intended.
Purp| 8.13.12 @ 6:22PM
So are you saying that Republicans are Socialists? I mean they are using government force to enforce vaginal ultrasound probes and to shut down women's clinics.
We do have the government our Founders intended - that is the system we live under. Don't you know that? It has been changed from the 1700's over time, which makes sense, since this world is VERY different from their own.
YOU want a more limited government only until you WANT the government to control something for you.
George Washington and the Founders were not so sure having a Standing Army was a good idea, and yet, here we are with a monstrous military, far beyond anything they could have imagined.
You want to scale back government, what you LIKE and what you don't like all have to go.
When you're ready for that, let me know.
When you're tired of living in the greatest country in the world, or you prefer to live in a second rate country where we came from, let me know. Think. No one lives by theory, in other words your right wing mythology.
George True| 8.13.12 @ 7:33PM
None of what you say is actually true. But of course, that does not matter to you. What matters to you is that you accomplish your purpose, which is to disrupt the exchange of ideas and information here on this forum.
We are vary well acquainted with such Alinskyite tactics. But it will not work here, because merely by exposing you as the troll that you are, your tactics are rendered ineffective.
MK48| 8.13.12 @ 10:45AM
Hat tip .....to Glenn Beck almost 4 years ago on soros.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.13.12 @ 11:10AM
"The price of any product is affected by the quantity of all the resources necessary to produce it -- labor, energy, land, information, time, for example."
This seems to me just adding to the confusion. Prices are determined not by anything other than what people will pay (what economists call subjective valuation). You can put all the time, labor, information, or whatnot, into a product x, and if people don't want x, it won't sell no matter what nominal price is put on it. It's price is effectively null, regardless of how much it cost to produce. As just one example, how many people will spend money on floppy disks or old computers today? Think of all the time and money that went into those products. Now, however, you can't even given them away.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.13.12 @ 11:12AM
Its for it's. %&$ d-mmit all.
buckeyeman| 8.13.12 @ 11:32AM
So can I send in my address and have you make Michael Phelps give me one of his gold medals?
The roads are there for everyone, but only a few are highly successful. Would you at least agree, Purpie, that Obama is a redistributionist?
buckeyeman| 8.13.12 @ 11:33AM
The compluter put my response to purp unders Vern's comment. Sorry Vern.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.13.12 @ 2:53PM
No problemo.....
Petronius| 8.13.12 @ 11:32AM
The economically illiterate Marxists have No sense of Real value. Their envy is a result of Marketing. If the union shlubs make fertilizer costing $1 a pound with 100% markup, they simply claim the difference is theirs. They are not being exploited, but transfer their wrath against their employer by feigning grievance on the part of the customer. The issue isn't value. It's the standard of living a median income buys. And the louts won't be satisfied until business executives can't live any better then them because their salaries aren't enough to afford mcmansions, and luxury goods.
Consider the bottom feeder's definition of work; physical exertion. Engineering and design don't count. Those people sit in offices, drink coffee, hold meetings, and supervise THEM. Those occupations require thinking. Joe 6pack is allergic to it. What's worse, he's proud of his ignorance. The remains of the economy will be plugged into government through takeovers and subsidies just like Europe where nobody has enough disposable income to move up the social food chain. The politicians like it that way. Costs of housing, education, and medicine are inflated due to government interference and will remain so because people refuse to accept the given conditions of Free society; material inequality, and risk. America is now a superannuated kindergarten.
"Democracy is a process of cancellations, the net result of which is zero." Lord Carlisle.
Bart| 8.13.12 @ 1:59PM
So if I were to, say, build a motorcycle out of wood (http://www.guzer.com/pictures/wood_framed_cycle.php) and it took, say, 1,000 hours. And somebody else were to build a motorcycle out of gold and it took 800 hours, the wooden motorcycle would be worth more because it took longer to build? Sounds rather stupid to me.
FiddlerBob| 8.13.12 @ 2:33PM
As a special offer to the supporters and believers in Obama and Marx I'm willing to make this special, one time offer.
I will go out and purchase the finest paints, brushes, and canvas that I can find. Then I'll check on how much time it and effort it took for Van Gogh to paint that picture of his that sold at auction for 50 million dollars.
Well, I will double the amount of time and effort that Van Gogh expended on that painting. And, if they don't like flowers, I'll let them pick the subject. But, and here's the best part, I'll sell my painting to them for the same auction price. According to the Obama and Marx crowd this will be an immediate savings of 50 million dollars. (Remember, I'm going to work twice as hard and twice as long as Van Gogh.) They can consider this savings my contribution to "the cause".
How can they refuse? This will become their beacon that every man should receive the same compensation for the same exertion of time and effort.
Oh, and if they buy this one, I'll throw in my 2nd ever painting and the frames for free!
PS. This offer is not going to be posted on any other site. So, Purp and his buddies have the first shot at putting their money where their mouth is. But, really, how can they lose?
RAM| 8.13.12 @ 3:53PM
Within the Marxist theory of labor or any theory of labor, what labor does Barack Obama do? Do endless vacations count? Time spent dissing his country?
Thom| 8.13.12 @ 6:32PM
Virtually no product/service exists without “labor”. Marxists are only interested in “labor” that gives them power over others. Take any product/service and behind that is normally a single person’s idea. That individualistic “labor” is conspicuously absence from the Marxist’s mindset. All throughout history “ideas” have out valued brawn. The assembly “labor hour” cost for a Ford Pinto and SL class Mercedes of the same time are comparable. Units of output per time are also comparable meaning that the bulk of the “labor” is the floor labor cost type and most numerous yet the “labor” in the idea and design of the two classes of vehicles is far more valuable to the final product’s market value per unit. When Ford declared that the Granada was like the same year SL class Mercedes the Marxists cheered, the market laughed. The guy who knows all the functions on a large sail boat and can get it and everyone on board safely to and from shore is consistently more valuable than 50 seaman each with a specialized function but none individually or collectively has the knowledge to navigate the ship.
Marxism only works in the insect world where the 99% work themselves to death for the benefit of the chosen 1%. Even there if there is no King/Queen cast the “workers” perish. This is why the “workers” in former communist countries have such difficult times being anything but a “worker” in a free enterprise system.
spike59| 8.14.12 @ 5:50AM
Marxism only works in the insect world
========================
thus, the Progressive "hive mind"
George True| 8.13.12 @ 8:01PM
Folks, it is pointless to try to engage or respond to the long-time troll who calls himself Purp, and before that Purple Guy. Whether he is a paid leftist troll or an unpaid volunteer leftist troll I don't know and it doesn't matter.
The point is, his purpose here is to DISRUPT any meaningful and good faith exchange of ideas and information. He is using parts of Alinsky rule numbers 5, 6, 12, and 13. The tactic is to put forth the usual leftist claptrap, then completely ignore and sidestep the irrefutable arguments you put forth in response, and then go off in another direction with yet another laundry list of leftist talking points.
The problem is, if you engage him, he has won. Because he has then succeeded in taking you down the rabbit hole with him, and thus has also succeeded in disrupting or hijacking the discussion.
Do not engage, other than to attach a Troll Alert! comment to his comment.
oldeham| 8.13.12 @ 8:38PM
As an undergrad I can remember sitting in an econ class hosted by a very very Marxist professor. It was so easy to tie him up in knots as he tried to explain how Castro's Cuba was a workers heaven where all shared equally in the wealth (read poverty) of the country.
To truly be a Marxist (rather than someone using Marxism to grab power) requires one to abandon all logic.
Common Decency| 8.14.12 @ 7:57AM
Very interesting to see how Obama is a Marxist. Also to see how stupid Marx was. People who love Marx are evil. They say "Property is theft" so they can steal. It is called "Projection" in psychology. But just one quibble - the most violent and horrific regimes in the world today are Islamic.... Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, KSA etc... almost all citizens of those countries are Muslim.