Only if you believed that the could also employ those laborers the most productively in terms of the value produced by them.
Because it also becomes something where you have to look at what is being produced - you could hire me as a high valued tradesman to dig a ditch; but that’s not my most productive skill set. I’m still going to charge you the same, because I’m the company owner and that’s my value as a worker. But, you multiply that out over hundreds of people, and you get very high cost differences vs just me, when I do all I can to AVOID that cost difference. I’ll try to have the owner do that, or rent a machine to do ditch work to save labor hours, etc.
But, there is a value to a ditch and it should be paid for. But that value is not the same value as paying an engineer to dig a ditch, or a master tradesman, if you don’t have to. Large companies are good for large projects spanning years or across the Empire. They’re awful for anything on the normal Polity level.
In the same manner, there’s no inherit value to the stock market. It’s all narrative and nominalism, all the way down. There’s no legal obligation for dividends, nothing on which the dividends are based out of earnings, and you only make money if narrative/nominalist number go up. The company doesn’t get your “investment in the company” - only the person you buy the stock from does. Anyways, that’s enough on that subject.
He's well thought out, as far as an-caps go. But An-caps can't maintain a civilization. When you can literally purchase property en mass at strategic locations within a state, and then declare yourself a separate sovereign entity that is going to enforce trade rules, separate laws, etc - it just doesn't work.
Imagine if all the land that China, or Chinese nationals, owned right now in the US, suddenly declared that they were Neo-China. What kind of impact would that have on our territory?
What kind of businesses and working relationships can be set up on those kinds of rules, spanning decades if not generations?
So, it all sounds good until you start dreaming up all kinds of ways to play havoc and wreck the system. And then you see how incredibly easy it would be, with the ways that they say are necessary for their dream system to work. Thus, there is no way to legislate around the problems, as it would necessitate ruining their dream system's philosophical moral foundations.
After a few interactions with Chris, I simply stopped. I saw that he was either completely honest and so caught up in his philosophy that he couldn't see the faults, or that he was so crooked as to play the role and delude the followers into the drug induced Anarcho-Capitalism death spiral. I'm fairly certain it's the former, but never going to rule out the latter.
It's interconnected. The goods increase and decrease with the labor, as stated, if it's valued on the labor.
The labor it takes to procure the goods is usually tied up with how scarce the goods are. If there is less of something, it usually takes more labor. If there is more, it takes less. Thus, boom and bust cycles of goods and prices are also tied up with the scarcity of the goods. The influx of workers and trade laws also makes a difference.
On my other substack I have a post that argues that money is a stand in for labor. It is, at it's heart, representative of labor value. Thus, deflation and inflation is misunderstood by economists.
Wouldn’t this make corporations into super mega corporations, so they could have the most laborers, and thus be the most valuable companies?
Unless you dissolved the stock market, this is exactly what would happen.
Only if you believed that the could also employ those laborers the most productively in terms of the value produced by them.
Because it also becomes something where you have to look at what is being produced - you could hire me as a high valued tradesman to dig a ditch; but that’s not my most productive skill set. I’m still going to charge you the same, because I’m the company owner and that’s my value as a worker. But, you multiply that out over hundreds of people, and you get very high cost differences vs just me, when I do all I can to AVOID that cost difference. I’ll try to have the owner do that, or rent a machine to do ditch work to save labor hours, etc.
But, there is a value to a ditch and it should be paid for. But that value is not the same value as paying an engineer to dig a ditch, or a master tradesman, if you don’t have to. Large companies are good for large projects spanning years or across the Empire. They’re awful for anything on the normal Polity level.
In the same manner, there’s no inherit value to the stock market. It’s all narrative and nominalism, all the way down. There’s no legal obligation for dividends, nothing on which the dividends are based out of earnings, and you only make money if narrative/nominalist number go up. The company doesn’t get your “investment in the company” - only the person you buy the stock from does. Anyways, that’s enough on that subject.
Any other questions?
Well answered, as usual. Thank you!
I’m currently reading Christopher Cook’s book on here. Really good so far on these matters.
He's well thought out, as far as an-caps go. But An-caps can't maintain a civilization. When you can literally purchase property en mass at strategic locations within a state, and then declare yourself a separate sovereign entity that is going to enforce trade rules, separate laws, etc - it just doesn't work.
Imagine if all the land that China, or Chinese nationals, owned right now in the US, suddenly declared that they were Neo-China. What kind of impact would that have on our territory?
What kind of businesses and working relationships can be set up on those kinds of rules, spanning decades if not generations?
So, it all sounds good until you start dreaming up all kinds of ways to play havoc and wreck the system. And then you see how incredibly easy it would be, with the ways that they say are necessary for their dream system to work. Thus, there is no way to legislate around the problems, as it would necessitate ruining their dream system's philosophical moral foundations.
After a few interactions with Chris, I simply stopped. I saw that he was either completely honest and so caught up in his philosophy that he couldn't see the faults, or that he was so crooked as to play the role and delude the followers into the drug induced Anarcho-Capitalism death spiral. I'm fairly certain it's the former, but never going to rule out the latter.
Saving this for later like dessert
This is a helpful framework. Would you argue the value of goods is relatively stable whereas labor can increase or decrease in value?
It's interconnected. The goods increase and decrease with the labor, as stated, if it's valued on the labor.
The labor it takes to procure the goods is usually tied up with how scarce the goods are. If there is less of something, it usually takes more labor. If there is more, it takes less. Thus, boom and bust cycles of goods and prices are also tied up with the scarcity of the goods. The influx of workers and trade laws also makes a difference.
On my other substack I have a post that argues that money is a stand in for labor. It is, at it's heart, representative of labor value. Thus, deflation and inflation is misunderstood by economists.
https://barbarianscorner.substack.com/p/economists-dont-understand-inflation