this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
371 points (94.5% liked)

Socialism

5189 readers
52 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
dessalines@lemmy.ml
371
Just a little class consciousness to wash down another day of work (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by rockSlayer@lemmy.world to c/socialism@lemmy.ml
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] charliespider@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Point taken, but FYI billionaires don't "earn" a billion dollars regardless, it's almost exclusively because their net worth due to stock ownership makes them a billionaire.

If you bought a house somewhere cheap, and then the eyesore old factory down the road gets torn down, and the land around your house explodes in value, you did not make a million dollars in income, even though your house is now worth that much.

As well, most billionaires live off money they borrow at stupid low interest rates because that doesn't count as income. An accountant would be able to explain in depth but that's one of the way they dodge taxes.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Stocks are just an abstracted way of exploiting workers.

[–] Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No they are a way of sharing ownership in a company. It is the speculation that occurs in stock exchanges than can lead to negative outcomes for employees.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Speculation has been a relatively insignificant factor overall in the trade of stocks compared to growth in their intrinsic value.

Stocks carry and accrue value due to the work of others than those who hold them.

[–] Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That simply is not true. The value of publicly traded stocks is based upon the speculation that the value of the stock will rise or decline which is often not related to the productivity of the workers.

The notion that all value cones from labor is fundamentally incorrect. Value can be created by scarcity and speculation which has been demonstrated time and again. For example all those recent finds of lithium potential mines have impacted the price of lithium world wide despite not a single mine being approved or any work being done to obtain it. Just knowing it is there has created that change.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

All theories of value are lacking in one way or another, but you're definitely in the wrong community if you fundamentally disagree with the labor theory of value. Intrinsically, an item has value based on demand and usefulness. However, no items exist without labor. The value of an item is disconnected from the wage exchanged to create it, and this theft of value is what we call "profit".

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Speculation depends on value a belief that value will rise in the future, which depends on the recognition of other value not speculative.

Land speculators know that land has usefulness, for development, agriculture, or resources. Stock speculators know that stocks have value generated by work. Even if market value has some component that is speculative, always some component is due to intrinsic value.

Your assertion, that "value of publicly traded stocks is based upon the speculation that the value of the stock will rise or decline", is refuted by the contradictions it itself implies.

An asset class whose value is purely speculative necessarily will collapse eventually. Generally in such cases the speculative value is generated through hype created by a nefarious actor who originally created the asset. Such is the nature of Ponzi schemes.

[–] Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You seem to be confused by my comment if you think it is contradictory.

I think APPL is overvalued so Im selling its stock while someone else believes that the stock will go up during the time they plan to hold onto the stock thus while I think it will decline someone else perceives for their reasons it will increase.

Considering you literally claimed Marx LVT as if it were gospel maybe consider you aren't going to have a good grasp on how stock markets work as that's not something you've studied.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A particular stock cannot be meaningfully considered overvalued if its entire value is speculative.

Such is the contradiction.

Perhaps you are not understanding speculation, confusing it with any investment purchase, any purchase based on expectation of rising value.

[–] Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have never said the entire value is speculative. I have said the price is based on perceived value of the company which us not 1:1 with productivity or actual reality in some cases (eg when the value is based on fraudulent information or reports a la Enron)

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I observed as follows:

Speculation has been a relatively insignificant factor overall in the trade of stocks compared to the effects of their intrinsic value.

Stocks carry and accrue value due to the work of others than those who hold them.

The following was your response:

That simply is not true. The value of publicly traded stocks is based upon the speculation that the value of the stock will rise or decline which is often not related to the productivity of the workers.

The notion that all value cones from labor is fundamentally incorrect.

It only confuses the matter further that you now offer as clarification, "I have never said the entire value is speculative".

I believe the observations I have given, more so than yours, are generally accurate.

The price of stocks is supported principally by the value generated by labor, with speculation necessarily only a secondary effect.

The belief that value will rise is generally an accurate belief, because growth occurs from the value generate by labor. Such growth is not related to speculation.

[–] Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The bit you are overlooking is the conditional phrase "which is often not related to the productivity of workers".

If I suspect APPL is going to gain value because I know China is going to announce that Chinese government workers can use Apple devices, then the gain in value will be based on the speculation that the stock will rise with these potential new sales. Thus the rise is not related to anything the workers are currently doing only on what they might possibly do in the future. That is speculative.

The above is not the same as the total value being purely speculative. Stocks kind of sort of sometimes represent real valuations but they never reflect the pure value of the labor alone. If that was the case there would be nothing to speculate on. We know exactly how many units Apple manufactures and how many sell. That is factored into evaluations as to if the stock price is accurate or not.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If I suspect APPL is going to gain value because… Chinese government workers can use Apple devices, then the gain in value will be based on the speculation… not related to anything the workers are currently doing…

The new sales would be of products whose creation occurs only through the labor of workers. Your are describing ordinary investment, not speculation.

Stocks kind of sort of sometimes represent real valuations but they never reflect the pure value of the labor alone.

The particular distinction is not relevant. Stocks gain value because of the labor of workers.

The labor of workers is the source of value, the single element without which stocks would never gain value. Speculation only occurs as secondary effect, a response to the intrinsic value generated by labor. If work stopped, if intrinsic value stopped growing, then speculation would also cease to have meaning.

An asset class inevitably crashes if traded speculatively but lacking any intrinsic value, as observed in Ponzi schemes.

[–] Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The value increased because people suspect sales would be made of products that have yet to he created so the value increased with ZERO input from the workers.

"Stocks kind of sort of sometimes represent real valuations but they never reflect the pure value of the labor alone. The analysis is not relevant. Stocks gain value because of the labor of workers."

Sorry but it is entirely relevant as it demonstrates the inaccuracy if your claim that labor is the only source of value. It is not and you can easily find thousands of examples as to why the labor theory of value is no longer supported in neoclassical economics. Marx was wrong about this.

Speculation creates some of the value of stock and labor factors into it but neither accounts for the total value of the stock.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The value increased because people suspect sales would be made of products so the value increased with ZERO input from the workers.

No prediction is absolute, and neither is any investment.

However, suppose inputs may be purchased at market for prices that are broadly stable, suppose a process is available for workers to create the products from such inputs, suppose the process is not in conflict with natural and legal constraints on the labor market, suppose the total wages required to pay to workers for each product is known, to reasonable precision, and suppose a consumer demand is also known, to reasonable precision.

Then, the prediction for profitability of investment is one related to general investment, not one based on speculation.

More, the prediction may be accurate only because the labor market exists, because workers will be available to provide labor.

If workers were not available, then no one would invest in production, obviously.

Sorry but it is entirely relevant as it demonstrates the inaccuracy if your claim that labor is the only source of value.\

You have consistently misconstrued my claim.

I never asserted the value of an asset may never have a component that is speculative, only that an asset class cannot sustain a component of its value that is speculative unless it also has a component relating to intrinsic value.

Except in extreme cases, as noted, the reason assets have speculative value is because they also have intrinsic value.

Again, assets eventually crash if they have no intrinsic value, only speculative value. Such is the claim I have made, which you consistently misrepresent.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My guy/gal/bie, have you heard of GameStop?

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes.

Have you heard of other publicly traded companies that are not Gamestop?

I am sorry, but your use of the one example to negate my position is sloppy and ridiculous.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you're being purposefully obtuse. Wonderful. 🤦

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. I just have not made any claims that are negated by the events related to trading Gamestop.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes you have and I'll leave you to go research what happened to it so you can see the truth for yourself.

Or you can refuse and continue to embarrass yourself peddling lies. Your choice.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Which statement have I made that is a "lie"?

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If only there was a way to convert that stock into yachts... 🤔

[–] charliespider@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Oh I'm not arguing against the absurdity of someone having a networth in the billions, I'm just trying to add clarity that it's the financial industry and tax laws that allow it to happen.

As opposed to just grunting "BILLIONAIRES BAAAAAAAAD!!!"

[–] Konlanx@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As opposed to just grunting "BILLIONAIRES BAAAAAAAAD!!!

But it's true.

Being a billionaire automatically makes you a bad person. A good person would realize that they are neither entitled to have a billion dollars nor need it nor earned it. A good person would use that wealth to give back.

Your initial argument of land increasing in value is wrong in my opinion. Buying cheap land, seeing it increase in value and then selling it is either inside knowledge or pure luck. Plus you need the financial options to even start buying the cheap land. Money makes money, so rich people get more rich, just because they are rich. This works because humans exploit natural resources which are becoming more and more limited and give those resources a price, meaning those price will increase forever. Therefore control of these resources makes money, but not everyone has the chance of obtaining that control, thus making the entire system unfair and once again make billionaires bad.

I could continue this rant way longer, going on about how those billionaires then cause the majority of trash, emissions and use most resources, but this comment is long enough now.

You can only become a Billionaire by exploiting people and / or resources and not giving back to those you exploited. So fuck all billionaires. All.

[–] thecrotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

Being a billionaire automatically makes you a bad person. A good person would realize that they are neither entitled to have a billion dollars nor need it nor earned it. A good person would use that wealth to give back.

The guy seems to agree with you on all of that and you're giving him shit because he's attempting to understand the problem and offer realistic solutions instead of screaming about it like a dipshit

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

Money only makes money if you choose to invest in things that increase in value.

If everybody invests in lithium mines then there will be a surplus and many investors will lose money.

It's work to collect the information to make the right choices.

Like workers don't share with the third world miners who provided the raw materials, billionaires don't share either. They can be taxed, though. But how much?

Should their billions be taken? Then who has the money to invest in risky opportunities? How much of their wages are workers willing to pool for those investments?

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You are not adding clarity.

Your understanding is misguided.

Terse messages are used not because the broader messages lack substantive justification, but rather because repetition helps them gain enough attention that more of society will feel motivated to investigate and to reflect.

[–] socsa@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Kanye: Am I a joke to you?