This is part of an essay Mises wrote in 1961 about Marxism. The essay is contained in a book assembled by the Mises Institute called, “Economic Freedom and Interventionism: An Anthology of Articles and Essays by Ludwig von Mises.”
Duration : 0:7:3
[youtube wEzXmyT6qNE]
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
Rycroftboy- If I …
Rycroftboy- If I hire workers to remodel my kitchen for $2,000 and after they finish the value of my house rises $5,000 explain to me how it is that I exploited them?
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
pretending im an …
pretending im an anarchist? hahah, mate what the are you on about. im the complete opposite. im a capitalist. i want to live in a world free of government intervention. where people can trade under their own rules and where people have to pay for their own mistakes. but its retards like yourself that are too scared to operate within a free market, that ruin it for everyone else.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
Wow you got your …
Wow you got your degree from the university of Sydney. Please dont pretend you are an Anarchist, you are a money hungry facist, you dont understand REAL Anarchism, its opposition to exploitation by creating a business class through market forces. You are so stupid, i mean who regulates this free market? Can a free market be manipulated easily without regulatuion and through accumilation of capital by exploiting labor?
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
i got it from the …
i got it from the University of Sydney actually. You’re obviously too dumb to understand. you obviously need the protection of government to provide for you cos you’re too retarded to make any money for yourself. enjoy the nappy of life that the government provides for you. maybe if you got a skill of some sort, you wouldnt need the government to wipe your for you every morning. or hold your little while you piss.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
Listen im sure your …
Listen im sure your proud of your economics degree but it sounds like it came out of a cocoa pebbles box. And i’m not your mate. You are saying that business never overproduces, because they would eventually go bankrupt. Umm this is the stupidest thing i ever heard have you ever worked anywhere?
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
i understand what …
i understand what you are saying, stupid, but how can the business overproduce FOR PROFIT! its impossible. unless the consumer buys the product, then the business would go bankrupt eventually. What you’re essentially saying is that the business control what the consumer consumes. as if that by overproducing, someone if forced to buy the product. and mate, i acutally have an economics degree and obviously understand business far better than you. fkn tool
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
hey stuoid, if you …
hey stuoid, if you ever read anything about buisness models you would understand that it is better for the bottom line to overshoot inventory rather than come up short of the customers needs. I know thats hard for you to understand but if you got off youtube long enough and maybe read a book…
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
hahahaa are you …
hahahaa are you retarded! how can a business overproduce for profit? do you understand what you are saying? that you can simply keep producing, and this some how turns into profit. the only way the business can profit is if the products are consumed. the business cant simply produce the products and force people to buy them. that is up to the choice of the consumer. how can you possibly label what you just said as logic. it is absolute idiocy
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
haha, this is …
haha, this is probably the dumbest comment i have ever read in my existence. and from the “yall” i already know its coming from an uneducated halfwit living in southern America. gotta love southern America. the birth place of all real drains on society. if you had any idea about capitalism, you would know that there is no separation of workers and bosses, because in essence we are all consumers. and consumers are the ultimate boss to all facets of any business. you’re brainwashed buddy
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
haha mate, if the …
haha mate, if the other two people are dumb enough to start a business without any legal paperwork outlining percentage ownership of the business for each individual, then they deserve to have it taken off them. to say that if you start a business with another person, it is a lucky dip as to who gets to own the business, as if when they “divide the labour”, as you put it, one of the men just decides, ‘ok well i’m going to own the buseiness’ and you two are working. AM I TALKING TO A BRICK WALL?
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
Yeah, I agree, it’s …
Yeah, I agree, it’s sad. Socialism is incapable of doing anything else than tearing down a society/economy. It has never succeeded in building a sustainable one. Yet people still fall for its simple solutions and powerful rhetoric. I usually don’t use this word, but along side with nazism socialism is evil.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
im sorry to get …
im sorry to get rude, but obviously you dont have the brain capacity to comprehend how the free market works. and the sad part is, thats the problem with most of the world today. they consistently think that capitalism is out to get them in some way. i mean, its ridiculous. who has convinced you of this bullshit? because not only are they robbing you of higher living standards by constantly allowing govt to intervene in market phenomena, but you’re it up for the rest of the world
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
mate this guys head …
mate this guys head is so far up the of a union worker its a joke. he has not one iota of common sense in his entire body. to try and claim that socialism is the key to higher living standards, after the history of the world has proved otherwise time and time again, is as retarded as saying… well i actually dont know whats more retarded. but the funny thing is, hes probably never read one piece of Austrian economic literature in his life. hes completely brainwashed. its actually sad
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
1. Yes, of course. …
1. Yes, of course. The workers would be the the owners as well as the workers though.
In a socialist planned economy they would not have this oppertunity, since the gov’t would be the owner of everything.
2. At a small scale with some basic tools, yes. The worker can produce shoes for himself and for a small number of other people in that manner. Wheter he would be an owner too is up to him though, depending on his motive to make the shoes. If it’s his livelihood, then he would be the owner.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
@Rycroftboy
No …
@Rycroftboy
No it’s not logical because your assumption that two people would start a company and later one person would decide to become the owner shows that you have no idea of ownership and business. Ownership starts when the company starts. And so both would be owners.
The “reasoning” leading up to that classic socialist punchline is false and therefore so is also the punchline.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
@Rycroftboy
And so …
@Rycroftboy
And so every owner is an exploiter?
Wow, what socialist gibberish.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
Riddle me this:
…
Riddle me this:
There are three elements: Owner, worker, and factory
Can you produce shoes with all three of those elements? Yes.
Can you produce shoes with just a factory? No, no matter how advanced the machines are.
Can you produce shoes with a factory, an owner, but no workers? The experience of every factory on the planet says “no”.
Now here are the tricky ones:
Can you produce shoes with just workers and a factory?
Can a worker alone produce shoes?
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
Riddle me this:
…
Riddle me this:
Yourself and two other people start a bakery company, selling baked goods.
You divide the labour:
One person will bake the goods.
The other person will sell and distribute the goods.
But for your part in production, you decide to be the “owner”.
All revenue generate by the other two will come back to you, and you will pay them their salaries out of the money that they earned for you, and keep the lions share for yourself.
Does this situation sound logical?
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
And you don’t …
And you don’t understand that your freedom of choice is illusory.
Wether or not you buy an Audi is irrelevent, because ALL of the cars from every company are still enriching the owner of that company.
Even if you choose not to buy non-essentials (like cars), eventually human needs food, clothing, shelter… these things are also produced in the capitalist way.
Eventually, you will have to purchase something, so basically the only “choice” you make is WHICH exploiter you enrich.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
Again, a managment …
Again, a managment position doesn’t have to entail economic exploitation, but in every capitalist enterprise it does.
When those that produce get paid an hourly wage, but those whos role in production is the “owner” collect the lions share, how can justify that they are just playing their role on the factory floor?
Besides, in most large work places, the manager is an employee themselves. Those that own the work place are literally no-where near the production, or participating in it.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
…And where did …
…And where did that capital come from (to create the buisness)?
Generally, either finance capital (ie. bank loan) or the persyn was allready wealthy (family wealth, inheritence).
Either way, the inital capital that was invested also came from exploited labour.
As far as managment goes:
A.) A manager in a buisness doesn’t have to be an exploitive relation
B.) Watch the documentary film “the Take”
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
i cant believe your …
i cant believe your comments. you actually have no idea what you’re talking about. if you really want to learn and see the benefits of capitalism and freedom of individual choice and how the free market benefits all that trade within it, send me your email and i will send you some Mises literature, quick and an easy read. you only need to recount history to see the flaws of socialism and the wonders of capitalism.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
You obviously dont …
You obviously dont understand the concept of freedom of choice. how can people exploit the market? through higher prices? if a producer puts his prices up, it is the consumers choice if he still purchases the product or not. if he does, then he is exlpoiting himself. its his own choice. its like me saying, Audi is exploiting the car market because their cars are expensive. but i have the choice not to buy them. so why do i care what price an audi is? no ones forcing me to buy one are they?
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
its like saying, a …
its like saying, a general of an army doesnt add value to the army. the soldiers could coordinate a military attack on their own. this is ridiculous. someone needs to guide the army so that the soldiers work in unison to provide the most efficient military service. just like in a business as an employer guides his employees in the production process to work efficiently to create a product.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:53 am
that is one of the …
that is one of the dumbest things i think i have ever read. the people paying the wages were the ones that invested the capital in the beginning to give birth to the business that employs the workers. without the employer, the business wouldnt exist in the first place. who would run the business without the owner, designer, and creator of the business. to say that the employer/manager doesn’t add value to the production process is as absurd as it is ridiculous.