Another valuable life lesson from Elmo and friends!
Another valuable life lesson from Elmo and friends!
You're viewing part of a thread.
I’m not sure how you define value, but I’m using it to mean “the price or amount that someone is willing to pay in the market” this could be for a tangle thing, like the house itself, or a service, like renting it.
My point is that landlords successfully find willing persons to rent their house for some amount of money. Therefore there is by definition value because it’s happening, whether this is ethically OK or being rented for a fair amount is a separate argument.
When I was a university student I didn’t have enough capital to buy an apartment, but I found value in being able to rent one.
I’m not sure how you define value, but I’m using it to mean “the price or amount that someone is willing to pay in the market” this could be for a tangle thing, like the house itself, or a service, like renting it.
That's close to the truth, but not quite. Supply and Demand distort the price around a central Value.
My point is that landlords successfully find willing persons to rent their house for some amount of money. Therefore there is by definition value because it’s happening, whether this is ethically OK or being rented for a fair amount is a separate argument.
Not really, the fact that something is purchased doesn't mean the "risk" or "liability" created the Value behind it.
When I was a university student I didn’t have enough capital to buy an apartment, but I found value in being able to rent one.
You found it useful, ie renting allowed you to fulfill the Use-Value you needed, shelter. You appear to be using Subjective Value "Theory," ie the idea that Value is a hallucination different from person to person, which is of course wrong.
You found it useful, ie renting allowed you to fulfill the Use-Value you needed, shelter. You appear to be using Subjective Value "Theory," ie the idea that Value is a hallucination different from person to person, which is of course wrong
I’m not using value in this way, I literally googled “ value in a market economy” because this is what I meant by value and I cut and pasted the common definition of this usage. There is no hallucination or subjectivity, I’m using value to objectively mean what people are actively paying for. If something exists in the market, and it is being exchanged for something in return, it has “value” by this definition.
You are indeed using SVT, where Value simply means a good is useful. We aren't talking about the same thing.
"Subjective value theory" as opposed to marx's "theory of value" which is sometimes mistakenly referred to as "labor theory of value" actually an earlier development that Marx refined into his own theory
I think we have different definitions of value and I will not pretend to be an economic theorist, this is out of my depth. My argument comes from a very practical perspective of supply and demand. There is obviously demand for renting property otherwise it wouldn’t exist.
I do think that capitalism at large creates an economic barrier and if one is below the barrier it is difficult to build capital and if you’re above the barrier it is easy. Picking on just land-lording is only picking at one instance of some larger systemic issues that capitalism brings with it. This will not change unless the government adds regulations that add “fairness” to pure capitalism.
This will not change unless the government adds regulations that add “fairness” to pure capitalism.
This is an impossible dream. Capitalism demands that the majority of people are perpetually in an underclass (with some shuffling of who specifically is in it). You can't have an entire population of small business owners, most people need to be wage-laborers or some equivalent.
I didn’t say anywhere that regulation will make it work or make it better, I just meant that it will certainly not change without some form of regulation.
I’m also not claiming that capitalism is perfect or even good, all economic theories are idealized, I actually don’t think there is a magical system with a simple set of rules that will actually work. The real world is complicated and messy and has exceptions all over the place.
I think there probably is some mixture of free market and socialist ideas that do work, and most countries work like this today.
It really frustrates me when people talk about "mixing capitalism and socialism." Whatever thing you're talking about is not what socialism is. Socialism is not when the government does stuff. Socialism is not when the government uses taxpayer money to fund social services or welfare. Socialism is the workers controlling the means of production.
Eclecticism doesn't work, it imagines that it can pick out the best of everything, but in reality it ends up either being fundamentally dysfunctional because you can't just decontextualize things from their theoretical framework and have it all work out, or they just end up being one thing with a partial veneer of other things. Almost every country you thought of when you wrote that comment unambiguously has nothing to do with socialism, they're just versions of liberalism that believe in some level of welfare, etc.
It really frustrates me when people talk in absolutes, is there no room for nuance and grey area? I didn’t claim what socialism or what capitalism is, but it’s definitely true that today's economies do borrow ideas from various economic theories. How is that a controversial statement at all?
Some things aren't compatible, and trying to combine them results in having one with the skin of the other. Liberal democracy, for instance, is incompatible with monarchy, and we can see in the UK for instance how the liberals kept on gaining ground until the monarchy became totally symbolic (a very expensive symbol, but a symbol nonetheless). If the workers having democratic control of the means of production precludes capitalists having plutocratic control, it's very simple. Put in the same environment, these two forces would bear what Marxists call "class antagonisms" towards each other and struggle until one was subordinated to the other.
The US (we'll use that example because I know it the best) does borrow ideas from various economic theories, those being various sects of classical liberalism, Keynesianism, and the odd bit of Austrian School or Christo-fascist policy. That is to say, different sects of capitalist ideology. You do not see policies based on Marxian economics or anything of the sort, it's just empirically not how US policy gets written, and that shouldn't surprise you.
I think we have different definitions of value and I will not pretend to be an economic theorist, this is out of my depth. My argument comes from a very practical perspective of supply and demand. There is obviously demand for renting property otherwise it wouldn’t exist.
Supply and Demand are only part of the factor, they orbit around Value. What determines the price of a commodity when Supply and Demand cover each other? The answer is Value.
I do think that capitalism at large creates an economic barrier and if one is below the barrier it is difficult to build capital and if you’re above the barrier it is easy. Picking on just land-lording is only picking at one instance of some larger systemic issues that capitalism brings with it. This will not change unless the government adds regulations that add “fairness” to pure capitalism.
I pick on all of Capitalism, I'm a Communist. Landlording just happens to be the topic at hand. At that matter, regulations and "fairness" will never fix Capitalism, just make its worst aspects more bearable until it collapses under itself.
Supply and Demand are only part of the factor, they orbit around Value. What determines the price of a commodity when Supply and Demand cover each other? The answer is Value.
Yes and renting of houses pretty uniformly exists under all market conditions I.e. even when supply and demand “cover each other”. So by your definition there must still be some value since it has a place in the market.
The value offered is a service, just like a hotel room. What is an alternative to renting that could enable someone to have a place to live without having the capital to buy property?
The Demand never covers the Supply in the housing market because houses are in limited supply. Renters are held hostage.
The alternative is government-owned and provided housing.
The Demand never covers the Supply in the housing market because houses are in limited supply. Renters are held hostage.
This isn’t true, there are certainly cases where supply outweighs demand and landlords are unable to rent their house. It doesn’t mean that renters could suddenly afford to buy it though.
The alternative is government-owned and provided housing.
I’ve yet to see where a government subsidized housing project ever turns into a desirable place to live. Unless you go full communism across the board where the government literally controls all housing, but this is extreme and pre-supposes that you are in alignment with the ideals and goals of your government. Historically this doesn’t seem to end up serving the common person better than a free market would.
All the top countries ranked by standard of living have some form of capitalist economy with some gov regulation safeguards in place.
There are a few errors, here.
This isn’t true, there are certainly cases where supply outweighs demand and landlords are unable to rent their house. It doesn’t mean that renters could suddenly afford to buy it though.
This isn't true. If Landlords lowered their rent to 0, there would be people renting from them, unless you mean literal ghost towns. Around areas where people live, lowering your price will get you renters.
I’ve yet to see where a government subsidized housing project ever turns into a desirable place to live. Unless you go full communism across the board where the government literally controls all housing, but this is extreme and pre-supposes that you are in alignment with the ideals and goals of your government. Historically this doesn’t seem to end up serving the common person better than a free market would.
There are a number of errors here.
-
Red Vienna is an example of government housing with great results even in a Capitalist country.
-
"Full Communism" has no such requirement for everyone to be "aligned in ideals and goals with government," whatever that means.
-
Historically, housing rates were far better in Socialist and post-Socialist countries than Capitalist countries, you pulled that "fact" right out of your ass.
All the top countries ranked by standard of living have some form of capitalist economy with some gov regulation safeguards in place.
Judging systems by their internal static snapshots and not by how they fit within the broader system and their trajectories is the peak of Idealism. The Nordic Countries, which you are referencing, enjoy high safety nets because they are Imperialist and drastically exploit the Global South, they are not affording these off their own backs. Additionally, they are seeing sliding worker protections and decreased unionization rates due to being Capitalist, and Capitalists slowly clawing back more profits via eroding the safety nets.
This isn't true. If Landlords lowered their rent to 0, there would be people renting from them, unless you mean literal ghost towns. Around areas where people live, lowering your price will get you renters.
Sure, but this supports my original point, this is because they dropped the price below market value implying that there is a value to begin with. We already established we’re using different definitions of value so it probably not worth arguing past each other.
- Red Vienna is an example of government housing with great results even in a Capitalist country.
But your example here isn’t lasting, it collapsed. The vast majority of economic systems have converged to some degree of capitalism and it’s “working” by the definition that it prevails.
- "Full Communism" has no such requirement for everyone to be "aligned in ideals and goals with government," whatever that means.
I didn’t say that there’s a requirement, I said that if I don’t agree with the value that my labor provides against what the proletariat has prescribed to it, then I’m just SOL. Why should I go through all of the additional work and schooling and effort of becoming a doctor if it’s valued equivalently or close to something that requires much less effort?
- Historically, housing rates were far better in Socialist and post-Socialist countries than Capitalist countries, you pulled that "fact" right out of your ass.
There was no fact, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to, I was stating that it doesn’t seem to have worked out purely because capitalist economies are most prevalent today and it seems like most common folk choose to live in countries with free markets.
This 3rd point of yours isn’t a good argument because you can also say that housing rates are great in Syria, but it doesn’t mean that many people would choose to live there.
But your example here isn’t lasting, it collapsed. The vast majority of economic systems have converged to some degree of capitalism and it’s “working” by the definition that it prevails.
Red Vienna's housing policies remain.
I didn’t say that there’s a requirement, I said that if I don’t agree with the value that my labor provides against what the proletariat has prescribed to it, then I’m just SOL. Why should I go through all of the additional work and schooling and effort of becoming a doctor if it’s valued equivalently or close to something that requires much less effort?
What on Earth do you mean here? Communism isn't when everyone gets paid the same thing.
There was no fact, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to, I was stating that it doesn’t seem to have worked out purely because capitalist economies are most prevalent today and it seems like most common folk choose to live in countries with free markets.
Again, you have no analysis of trajectories, nor how they fit in the grand scheme of things. You ignored my entire section on that, actually.
This 3rd point of yours isn’t a good argument because you can also say that housing rates are great in Syria, but it doesn’t mean that many people would choose to live there.
Again, analyze trajectories and context. Socialist countries have done the most to uplift their population, far moreso than Capitalist countries. Capitalist countries in the Global North rely on brutal exploitation of the Global South to even exist in the first place. If someone is rich, and they gain their wealth by stealing from everyone else, why are you saying that seems to be the best model?
If someone is rich, and they gain their wealth by stealing from everyone else, why are you saying that seems to be the best model?
I’m not claiming that capitalism is perfect or objectively good, all economic theories are idealized and I don’t think there is a magical system with a simple set of rules that actually works.
The real world is complicated and messy and has exceptions and bad actors. Capitalism clearly needs some form of regulation without runaway effects, but I think I would prefer to live in a free market at least to some degree. I personally cannot afford to be a landlord, but I also don’t think that it’s unfair for them to exist.
What on Earth do you mean here? Communism isn't when everyone gets paid the same thing.
I thought communism was when property and wealth are communally owned. The extreme of this is that higher value labor doesn’t get proportionally rewarded at an individual level. In other words, it tends to favor equality of outcome over equality of opportunity.
-
I pick on all of Capitalism, I'm a Communist. Landlording just happens to be the topic at hand. At that matter, regulations and "fairness" will never fix Capitalism, just make its worst aspects more bearable until it collapses under itself.
Isn’t this an argument that could be applied against communism though? Communism is government regulation to enforce fairness, if it can’t fix capitalism, why would it work in a communist economy?
Your comment reminded me of a quote about the Bolsheviks and the idea of communist "equality"
long quote
The kind of socialism under which everybody would get the same pay, an equal quantity of meat and an equal quantity of bread, would wear the same clothes and receive the same goods in the same quantities — such a socialism is unknown to Marxism.
All that Marxism says is that until classes have been finally abolished and until labor has been transformed from a means of subsistence into the prime want of man, into voluntary labor for society, people will be paid for their labor according to the work performed. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Such is the Marxist formula of socialism, i.e., the formula of the first stage of communism, the first stage of communist society.
Only at the higher stage of communism, only in its higher phase, will each one, working according to his ability, be recompensed for his work according to his needs. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
It is quite clear that people’s needs vary and will continue to vary under socialism. Socialism has never denied that people differ in their tastes, and in the quantity and quality of their needs. Read how Marx criticized Stirner for his leaning towards equalitarianism; read Marx’s criticism of the Gotha Programme of 1875; read the subsequent works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and you will see how sharply they attack equalitarianism. Equalitarianism owes its origin to the individual peasant type of mentality, the psychology of share and share alike, the psychology of primitive peasant “communism.” Equalitarianism has nothing in common with Marxist socialism. Only people who are unacquainted with Marxism can have the primitive notion that the Russian Bolsheviks want to pool all wealth and then share it out equally. That is the notion of people who have nothing in common with Marxism. That is how such people as the primitive “communists” of the time of Cromwell and the French Revolution pictured communism to themselves. But Marxism and the Russian Bolsheviks have nothing in common with such equalitarian “communists.”
Fantastic quote, great reference.
That's not what Communism is. Communism is the process of working through contradictions (ie the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie) through Historical Development. Socialism is established via Proletarian control of Capital, rather than Bourgeois, not just regulation or "fairness."