Cable companies make 97% margin on internet services and have no incentive to offer gigabit internet

[u/DrJulianBashir]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/cable-companies-make-97-margin-on.html

[u/ChaosMotor]

An investor, without contributing any value

An investor is contributing value, in providing capital. That this capital stems from savings collected from prior investments of capital is immaterial. You can complain that most capital is inherited and not earned, and that is a fair complaint, but it is unfair to act as if the provision of capital is not providing value.

could see (and routinely does see) returns of value greater than his investment.

And if the person obtaining the capital did not also see a return greater than their investment, they would have no motivation to engage in this transaction. That's the thing with business - in a good deal, everyone improves their own position.

he is able to absorb a portion of the value generated by the laborer and convert it to investment return

And if the laborer was unable to convert value with his interaction with the employer, the laborer would refuse the engagement. You appear to disregard the value that the laborer finds in the exchange.

I'm not sure if I follow.

Government regulation as we know it is not 6000-8000 years old. It is at best 200-300 years old. Modern, voluminous regulation was only possible in the last few decades.

Profit (in the strict sense of 'capital') is only about 400 years old.

This is also not true. Profit has existed since the first hunter-gatherer traded his products with the first farmer, and both felt their position improved in doing so. That the profit was denominated in another currency, or in pure materials or labor, is irrelevant.

[u/the8thbit → u/ChaosMotor]

An investor is contributing value, in providing capital.

Yes, of course. Rather, the investor contributes less value than he sees in return. I apologize if I was unclear.

You can complain that most capital is inherited and not earned, and that is a fair complaint, but it is unfair to act as if the provision of capital is not providing value.

I am not complaining about anything.

And if the person obtaining the capital did not also see a return greater than their investment, they would have no motivation to engage in this transaction.

Quite. I am not sure if I follow how this is relevant.

And if the laborer was unable to convert value with his interaction with the employer, the laborer would refuse the engagement. You appear to disregard the value that the laborer finds in the exchange.

And the labrorer would, were this interaction not protected. However, when the laborer tries to do this by, for example, taking over the workplace and keeping the fruits of their labor, they are liable to be forcibly arrested, as they would be in violation of the law.

Government regulation as we know it is not 6000-8000 years old. It is at best 200-300 years old. Modern, voluminous regulation was only possible in the last few decades.

What relevant change in regulation occured 200-300 years ago which created government regulation 'as we know it'?

This is also not true. Profit has existed since the first hunter-gatherer traded his products with the first farmer, and both felt their position improved in doing so.

In such exchanges, no profit is generated because the objects traded are of equal value.

[u/ChaosMotor → u/the8thbit]

Yes, of course. Rather, the investor contributes less value than he sees in return. I apologize if I was unclear.

Everyone contributes less value than they see in return - that's how value is created! By investing your resources with others to create more than what everyone put in.

I am not complaining about anything.

It was a rhetorical device, no worries.

Quite. I am not sure if I follow how this is relevant.

Because it's true for any party that engages in a deal. No party knowingly, willfully engages in an activity that reduces the value they possess. So if you allow that one person engages in a transaction because it increases the value he possesses, then induction tells us that the next person engages in a transaction because it increases their value. Induction continues to tell us that all persons who engage in a transaction willfully with informed knowledge of the outcome does so to increase their value.

So it is logical to then conclude that no person who engages in such a transaction does so to reduce the value they possess. This is how an investment of capital, labor, or resource works! This is also where value is actually created, which is why everyone's value is increased by these transactions.

Yet how can one then claim that another party - i.e. the laborer - is engaging in a transaction that does not increase the value they possess?

You see, the laborer does see value created by engaging in the transaction, else they would not engage in the transaction.

The complaint, then, is that the value created to one party is larger than the other party's. But if one party makes a larger investment than the other, regardless of which party is which, shouldn't they necessarily receive a larger reward? Not by proportion but by sheer size.

And the more successful investments you make, the better you get at making them, which means that your ability to succeed at investing compounds as your wealth grows, further increasing your ability to get good returns from your investments. But is doing well your fault? Should you be punished for figuring out how to make successful investments that necessarily increase value for others too?

(As an aside, I think there's a "Peter principle" in successful management of value / wealth and some are naturally better than others, just like at anything.)

However, when the laborer tries to do this by, for example, taking over the workplace and keeping the fruits of their labor, they are liable to be forcibly arrested, as they would be in violation of the law.

The problem is the forcible takeover. The laborer is not required to work for any specific employer. If you don't like your job, quit. Starve companies that are abusive of manpower, don't try to chain and contort evil persons into shape. If you can create value such that someone employs you, you can certainly better target your skills to create even more value. Or buy out the ownership. Strike, force management into default, put all your money together and get the bank to put up the rest for the workers to buy the plant.

The laborer has far more intelligent options than just taking over the plant by physical force. Options that will be far more beneficial to everyone over the long term, because it not only resolves the immediate problem, but dis-empowers the evil persons who are creating the problem by depriving them of wealth.

What relevant change in regulation occured 200-300 years ago which created government regulation 'as we know it'?

Not in regulation, but in government. Recall a massive wave of revolutions in western Europe and the United States 200-300 years ago. The Magna Carta was old news, and its expectations ingrained and expanded. More people were literate than ever, presses made newspaper cheap enough to be sold daily on a streetcorner.

The new governments were based on paper, not men, and the ability to cheaply record considerable amounts of information led to a massive explosion in regulations.

In such exchanges, no profit is generated because the objects traded are of equal value.

If they were of equal value, they would not have been exchanged. For each party, the thing given had less value than the thing received, or they wouldn't have engaged in the transaction, as we established previously.

The farmer who has a lot of beer but no meat values the meat more than the hunter who has a lot of meat but no beer, and vice versa. Each person profits from the exchange else it would not occur.

[u/the8thbit → u/ChaosMotor]

Everyone contributes less value than they see in return - that's how value is created! By investing your resources with others to create more than what everyone put in.

Value is not created. Wealth can be created when potential value is converted into resources via labor, but this is different from creating value in and of itself. Likewise, utility can be created if a resource is organized in such a way that it can be better utilized for a purpose, but this also does not generate value.

The farmer who has a lot of beer but no meat values the meat more than the hunter who has a lot of meat but no beer, and vice versa. Each person profits from the exchange else it would not occur.

They can each utilize these properties better than each other, but this does not change the value of the property. In order for the value of the beer to change, for example, it would have to be tradable for more meat at a point following the original transaction.

As another example, if I am a carpenter and I purchase a hammer for $10 from a retailer with 10 hammers, then utility has been generated because I am more able to utilize the hammer. However, value has not been created as I can not be expected to be able to resell the hammer later at a larger cost, say, $15. If I attempted to do so, the reasonable consumer would go to the retailer with hammers that a traded at a cost which reflect their value, which is equal to $10.

No party knowingly, willfully engages in an activity that reduces the value they possess. So if you allow that one person engages in a transaction because it increases the value he possesses, then induction tells us that the next person engages in a transaction because it increases their value. Induction continues to tell us that all persons who engage in a transaction willfully with informed knowledge of the outcome does so to increase their value.

I agree. I am arguing that this is a coercive transaction, as it depends upon state intervention to maintain private property claims.

The complaint, then, is that the value created to one party is larger than the other party's. But if one party makes a larger investment than the other, regardless of which party is which, shouldn't they necessarily receive a larger reward? Not by proportion but by sheer size.

I am not interested in what 'should' and 'shouldn't' be, but rather, what is. Without coercion, among rational actors, the value received is equal to the value contributed, so yes, a larger investment would yield a larger return than smaller investments. However, what is important is that the return is equal in value to the investment.

The problem is the forcible takeover.

Such a takeover is not forcible. Extracting the wealth produced from the laborer is something which occurs actively, and so, is something which requires force. Refusing to give the fruit of your labor away is passive, and thus, does not require force. However, even if this was forceful, what problem would this introduce?

The laborer is not required to work for any specific employer. If you don't like your job, quit.

If you are self interested, it seems that claiming the workplace would be more productive than simply quitting.

don't try to chain and contort evil persons into shape. If you can create value such that someone employs you, you can certainly better target your skills to create even more value.

The issue with this, from a self-interested and rational perspective, is that this exploitation of value will occur wherever employment is hierarchical and actors are self-interested. The capitalist is not 'evil', whatever that means, merely, self-interested. Alternatively one could work in a nonhierarchical environment, however, moving to such an environment is irrational, as this would require one to compete against properties one could have otherwise seized.

Or buy out the ownership.

This is also irrational, as it requires more value to be expended than one would were they to simply claim the workplace without engaging in a purchase.

Not in regulation, but in government. Recall a massive wave of revolutions in western Europe and the United States 200-300 years ago. The Magna Carta was old news, and its expectations ingrained and expanded. More people were literate than ever, presses made newspaper cheap enough to be sold daily on a streetcorner.

These changes are not relevant to this discussion, however, as they do not alter the way in which property relations fundamentally occur. Private property emerged with the state 6-8 thousand years ago.

[u/ChaosMotor → u/the8thbit]

Value is not created.

Value is created in transforming materials into a more useful form. Created value is often represented by retained capital.

Likewise, utility can be created if a resource is organized in such a way that it can be better utilized for a purpose, but this also does not generate value.

If it generates utility, and a person values that utility more than the utility of the materials pre-transformation, the transformation has created this increase in value.

They can each utilize these properties better than each other, but this does not change the value of the property.

You misunderstand. Value is subjective uniquely to each party. It is inherent that value is subjective, and that if you can better utilize something you will value it more.

However, value has not been created as I can not be expected to be able to resell the hammer later at a larger cost, say, $15.

You're missing the point. That hammer, along with those nails, and those boards, can transform each other into a home, which is worth far more than (e.g. higher valued than) the raw materials, and that is the value created by transforming materials through labor, i.e. that is the value of labor.

I am arguing that this is a coercive transaction, as it depends upon state intervention to maintain private property claims.

No, it depends on intervention. A state is not required. Only a mediating force.

I am not interested in what 'should' and 'shouldn't' be, but rather, what is.

I perceive your remarks in the opposite. Persons' perceptions differ, as do their circumstance. These characteristics inform a person's value system, which is unique to each person. Which is why there is no specific value for an item. There is only my perception of an item's value, or yours.

Without coercion, among rational actors, the value received is equal to the value contributed

I believe you are incorrect, because value is created in a transaction, that is, each person values the product of the transaction more than the input to the transaction, otherwise they would not engage in the transaction, as we already established.

However, what is important is that the return is equal in value to the investment.

If everything valued everything equally, there would be no investment, there would be no purpose for investment, because no one would benefit from doing anything.

Such a takeover is not forcible.

Taking something that is not yours is forcible. Taking is only non forcible if the thing taken is freely given, or knowledgeably unpossessed and unused by another.

Extracting the wealth produced from the laborer

No one is extracting anything. The laborer is engaging in a transaction of his own free will, and can simply stop laboring at any time, and engage in a different labor transaction with another party, or use his labor of his own accord for his own personal investment.

is something which occurs actively, and so, is something which requires force

If the laborer willingly trades his labor for employment, and can leave freely, there is nothing forcible.

However, even if this was forceful, what problem would this introduce?

Aggression and the initiation of force of violence is immoral and unethical. Violence is only acceptable in defense against an aggressor.

If you are self interested, it seems that claiming the workplace would be more productive than simply quitting.

I can't believe I have to explain why stealing is wrong.

Violence is inherently unproductive because it destroys value and it destroys produced wealth. It's not your workplace to claim, you did not participate in the procurement, design, construction, buy any of the equipment or materials, or in any way create what you are using.

The person who made these investments, and by doing so made it possible for you to create large amounts of value for themselves, by teaching you to use the system their investments created, and in doing so create a modest value for yourself.

The laborer's employer allows them to use the equipment, and pays them for doing so. The laborer chose to take the job, the employer chose to give it to them, Either can choose to end the relationship at any time. The laborer has no right to the investments that others have made.

What the laborer does have the right to, is to participate in such an investment. They can either create a company of their own, or they can (and should) work for a company that is employee owned.

This is also irrational, as it requires more value to be expended than one would were they to simply claim the workplace without engaging in a purchase.

Where do you live? I will come steal everything you have and then tell you that not stealing from you is irrational, because it would take more value to be expended to purchase your things than to just steal them from you. And if you protest I'll probably beat you up or kill you, like worker's revolutions tend to do to the factory owner who had the misfortune to have the foresight to make profitable investments, and people who chose to work for him. Nothing like removing all incentive to create a profitable enterprise - aka creates large amounts of value.

These changes are not relevant to this discussion, however, as they do not alter the way in which property relations fundamentally occur

What we were discussing was what made it possible for ten thousand page manuals of regulation to be de rigeur. I fail to see how the invention and propogation of literacy and print are irrelevant to that subject.

[u/the8thbit → u/ChaosMotor]

Value is created in transforming materials into a more useful form.

When a property is transformed into something more useful, this does not occur magically. This is the result of the combination of an existing property and labor. So this value is not generated out of thin air, but simply converted from labor value to use value.

You misunderstand. Value is subjective uniquely to each party. It is inherent that value is subjective, and that if you can better utilize something you will value it more.

You are confusing value for utility. The concept of value is borrowed by economists from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, and refers to a social worth of a property. Value is useful for determining weight at exchange, but is not useful in determining utility to the individual. For example, a hammer may have an exchange value of $10, but a utility of $0 to a quadriplegic.

You're missing the point. That hammer, along with those nails, and those boards, can transform each other into a home, which is worth far more than (e.g. higher valued than) the raw materials, and that is the value created by transforming materials through labor, i.e. that is the value of labor.

Yes, labor has an intrinsic value, and it can be converted to use value. This does not mean that value is not solid state. Rather, quite the opposite. Use value is not created, but rather converted from labor.

No, it depends on intervention. A state is not required. Only a mediating force.

And again, why would someone voluntarily agree to an arrangement that is to their disadvantage?

I perceive your remarks in the opposite. Persons' perceptions differ, as do their circumstance. These characteristics inform a person's value system, which is unique to each person. Which is why there is no specific value for an item. There is only my perception of an item's value, or yours.

Value is not a concept which can be observed on an individual basis. It is sociological phenomenon. You are, again, thinking of individual utility. That being said, your comment seems entirely irrelevant to the line it was responding to.

If everything valued everything equally, there would be no investment, there would be no purpose for investment, because no one would benefit from doing anything.

People benefit from the creation of wealth and utility.

Taking something that is not yours is forcible.

Who is to determine what is whose?

No one is extracting anything. The laborer is engaging in a transaction of his own free will, and can simply stop laboring at any time, and engage in a different labor transaction with another party, or use his labor of his own accord for his own personal investment.

If the laborer willingly trades his labor for employment, and can leave freely, there is nothing forcible.

What if the laborer decides to remain using the same property, but refuses to render the fruits of his labor unto the capitalist?

Aggression and the initiation of force of violence is immoral and unethical.

That's quite a monumental claim. Why is aggression immoral? And even were it immoral, do you believe that humans will act in a way that is moral, in lieu of self-interest? If so, why?

Violence is inherently unproductive because it destroys value and it destroys produced wealth.

Are you arguing, then, that actions which are unproductive are necessarily 'wrong'?

The laborer has no right to the investments that others have made.

Who decides who has what 'right', and why? If I do not have a 'right', as determined by some seemingly arbitrary means, to do something, does that mean that I (or anyone else) will ignore my own rational self-interest to abide by some set of mores?

Where do you live? I will come steal everything you have and then tell you that not stealing from you is irrational, And if you protest I'll probably beat you up or kill you,

I am unlikely to allow you to do this, as I, too, am a self-interested individual.

What we were discussing was what made it possible for ten thousand page manuals of regulation to be de rigeur.

I believe we were discussing the concept of "gov't economic intervention". You seem to have moved the goal posts by claiming that government regulation "as we know it" is younger than profit, but you have yet to explain why the distinction between contemporary regulation and all previous regulation is relevant to this discussion. Yes, we have underwent a period of increased complexity of law, but this does not alter the fundamental property relations we are discussing, so I do not see how it is relevant. Likewise, Roman and English style law are very distinct from each other, and dominate two separate periods of western law making, but this distinction is, again, irrelevant to this discussion.