tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post1493472130440485349..comments2023-07-07T10:20:47.692-04:00Comments on A Portrait of the Dumbass as an Old Man: PostcapitalismChris Heinzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00045972508852914723noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post-30269395857161915662016-03-13T10:31:05.637-04:002016-03-13T10:31:05.637-04:00So, the energy theory of value? It is now in the h...So, the energy theory of value? It is now in the hopper, I will think on it consciously and, more importantly, subconsciously. Thanks.Chris Heinzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00045972508852914723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post-58854654273654655322016-03-13T00:28:53.326-05:002016-03-13T00:28:53.326-05:00Anyway, it is the massive undervaluation of energy...Anyway, it is the massive undervaluation of energy in terms of money which enables its use in the economy. Also the massive undervaluation of productive labor. While some of this is unfortunately necessary, when it gets out of hand, economic pathology results. As in the underinvestment in alternative energy sources, and in the existence and exploitation of the working poor. I am all for solar on every roof top, but in the present economy, the transition requires way more subsidy than it’s getting. (This dispersal of energy input will be opposed by the concentrated powers that be.) 3D printed houses from dirt and food grown anywhere all require massive energy input, and until alternative energy is way cheaper than even fossil fuels at their cheapest were, they ain’t going to happen. Sorry.<br />__________________<br /><br />Information is one factor of production, underappreciated in the past. The <i>costs</i> of information, labor, energy, and materials, inputs in general, are additive. When they are combined to from a “product,“ the “factors” are multiplied, not added. The notion that these values are added (value “added”) is a fundamental flaw in mainstream economic understanding. (Along with the standard definition of money!)<br /><br />Government and finance are also multiplicative. NOT additive. They each, in their way, enhance economic efficiency. However, because they, (and management in general) are not direct factors, they are limited in how much they can increase the value of production. Efficiency can only be increased so far, and then as the limit is neared, only at exorbitant cost. As the costs of these factors are, as all other factors, additive, there is thus a given quantity of each which, when properly applied (with proper information!) maximizes the value produced by the economy. Excess government, finance, and management reduce the value produced by the economy, as do these factors poorly applied. Insufficient government, finance, and management, also. <br /><br />___________________<br /><br />So I am regarding information as a factor, and Mason is regarding it as a product. The viewpoints are complimentary.<br /><br />___________________<br /><br />Energy can be both a compliment to and a substitute for labor. That it can be a compliment is why the wide distribution of sources will be opposed.<br />greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08201906679062960215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post-86866809116475946642016-03-13T00:27:06.891-05:002016-03-13T00:27:06.891-05:00Hi again, Chris.
First, about the labor theory of...Hi again, Chris.<br /><br />First, about the labor theory of value. Consider an economy as two parts, production and consumption. In production, the reward to labor cannot be greater than the value of what that labor produces. This is especially apparent in productive services, but is true in goods (and energy) production, also. A cabinet maker, a plumber, cannot be paid more than the value of what he contributes to a business, and that business cannot be paid more than the value of what that business contributes to society. The difference in (real) value between what the cabinet maker is paid goes to support/drive the business and the rest of society. (It is accounted for in money, but money does not account for the whole value.)<br /><br />The difference in cost of production of, say, an energy product such as oil, and its benefit to society is humongous, (a multiplicative factor of about 10, sort of,) so conceivably roustabouts and coal miners could be paid much more than they are. However, if we were to significantly increase the reward to labor for their efforts, the net value to society of the energy produced would also decline dramatically. <br /><br />Now consider the labor which goes into consuming. Since nothing of value is produced, (Its consumption!) value cannot be the limiting factor in the reward to labor. Consider a rock concert. What is produced? Temporary good feeling among perhaps thousands of fans? Yet the reward to the labor of the rock stars may be hundreds, perhaps thousands of times the reward to the cabinet maker or the plumber, or even the roustabout or coal miner. <br />________________<br /><br />That “capitalism requires shortages” implies that capitalism cannot provide an entire society with essential goods, since there will always be those who cannot afford them. There will always be people deprived of the necessities of life, and basically outside the system. I’m working on this. (One representation of libertarianism, then, is necessarily the claim that there are no essential goods. Which goes to show you how daft those people are.)<br />________________<br /><br />I find it useful to try to think about the economy in terms of two systems of valuation, monetary (demand) and energy (supply.) It is the flow of energy which drives society, and the (opposite) flow of money which directs and channels it. You sort of have to think about them at the same time, or at least examine both valuations in a given economic situation. Wellll, maybe some contexts you can mostly just look at one or the other.<br /> <br />And I think that basing a theory of value on energy is much more useful than using labor. Especially in today’s economy, energy is involved in all production, and the rewards to labor can be accounted for in energy equivalents. (Besides, I majored in physics in college! The study of ENERGY in all its forms and flows!)<br /><br />TBC---greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08201906679062960215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post-81703225462940418962016-03-10T20:37:28.475-05:002016-03-10T20:37:28.475-05:00Thanks for the reply, Greg.
I like your concept ...Thanks for the reply, Greg. <br /><br />I like your concept of information as an energy multiplier. I think Mason's concept is more, information based products have close to zero marginal cost, which means not so much that they are free, but that they break the normal pricing mechanisms of markets. <br /><br />You out out houses and food as non-information goods that will still follow old economic principles. Mason calls out raw materials and energy. I questioned energy, based on the ability of solar to create massively decentralized energy. But, if houses can be 3d printed from dirt, and food grown anywhere there is sunlight, are they really still scarce?<br /><br />Your mention that "capitalism requires shortages" is spot on. I included this except from Mason:<br /><br />"<i>The creation of monopolies to resist prices falling towards zero is capitalism’s most important defence reflex against postcapitalism.</i>"Chris Heinzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00045972508852914723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post-52285662016742075652016-03-10T01:23:54.367-05:002016-03-10T01:23:54.367-05:00Wow! Quite the review, which I will read over the ...Wow! Quite the review, which I will read over the next a few days. Wow.<br /><br />In the mean time: The information revolution was not like the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution was based on the increasing ability to extract and consume fossil fuels. Energy. The information revolution merely to make that production and consumption more efficient. Efficiency is a multiplicative factor. (But now consider wind and solar. These add to energy production.) Also increasing the channels available for consumption of energy. But energy, and its distribution are still the limiting factors. (Note energy production, esp since ~1975.} The cost of labor can evaluated by how much energy the laborer consumes. The energy equivalent of his pay.<br /><br />The things which require energy to produce are still limited and in short supply. Cf: Housing, and food. But now a surplus of cars. Economic shortages do not always appear to be shortages because of the increasing mal-distribution of money/demand. The poor don't have any. So we have a surplus of housing AND a shortage. And demand has dis-proportionately increased on the consumption side of the economy, vs (real) production/capital side. (It's the working poor, the ones who proportionately contribute the most to society, who are especially taking the hit.)<br /><br />Information is cheap, especially content. (Vs form, which can be copyrighted.) Infinite supply; finite demand. <br /><br />So technology multiplies the use value of energy. Indeed, production per se is a multiplicative process. (Multiply- product- get it?) NOT additive, as generally assumed. Technology does not add. Costs, however, are additive. <br /><br />The US can be regarded as a factory, which cannot cover its costs. <br /><br />The logic of capitalism requires shortages. Only thus may the price be maintained at a profitable level. This means there will always be the poor and needless suffering.<br /><br />OK. Ranted on longer than I thought. It's late. See you later, Chris.<br /><br /> greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08201906679062960215noreply@blogger.com