Comments on: Mises Explodes Marxism

By: Rycroftboy

Rycroftboy — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:53:18 +0000

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?

By: Rycroftboy

Rycroftboy — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:53:18 +0000

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.

By: Rycroftboy

Rycroftboy — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:53:18 +0000

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.

By: Rycroftboy

Rycroftboy — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:53:18 +0000

…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”

By: ThebigTH

ThebigTH — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:53:18 +0000

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.

By: ThebigTH

ThebigTH — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:53:18 +0000

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?

By: ThebigTH

ThebigTH — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:53:18 +0000

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.

By: ThebigTH

ThebigTH — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:53:18 +0000

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.

By: ThebigTH

ThebigTH — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:53:17 +0000

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.

By: mitchrix31

mitchrix31 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:53:17 +0000

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?