From: au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: Re: Clinton on Economics (transcript of speech)
Reply-To: au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 12:03:40 GMT


In a previous article, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) says:

>In article <1992Aug21.165652.3018@news.ysu.edu>, ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben) writes:
>|> 
>|> In a previous article, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) says:
>|> 
>|> >In article <1992Aug19.150321.29646@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben) writes:
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> "Growth" is a false category. So is "investment" . These false
>|> >|> categories have led us into the economic mess that the U.S. is currently
>|> >|> in.
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> Growth can mean more yachts or golden staircases are being produced
>|> >|> by backward hand labor - and the whole society falls apart as the 
>|> >|> wealthy are catered to.
>|> >|> 
>|> >
>|> >In your example, who builds the yachts and the golden staircases?
>|> >The wealthy may be catered to but workers are employed to do the
>|> >catering.  In your example wealth is being exchanged, the worker
>|> >exchanges labor for 'money' and the wealthy exchange money for
>|> >some other good.  Society hardly falls apart in this scenario.
>|> >
>|> But who is the important party in the production of WEALTH is 
>|> where we have the difference. One can produce wealth WITHOUT
>|> capital or the capitalist. One CANNOT produce WEALTH witout
>|> the WORKER. 
>|> 
>|> Any strike shows that this is true.
>|> 
>
>Actually this is a false claim.  It would be feasible to invest
>in a machine which produced a product that could be sold, i.e
>create wealth.  Take a worker and put him in a desert and how
>much wealth will he produce?  In general this is not an either
>or situation.  You need *BOTH* labor *AND* capital to produce
>wealth.  The application of capital will cause wealth to increase
>at a faster rate than simple labor alone.
>

NOT IT IS NO FEASIBLE TO INVEST IN A MACHINE THAT PRODUCED A PRODUCT
THAT COULD BE SOLD, I.E. CREATE WEALTH.

It is NOT that MACHINES create WEALTH.

It is that wealth is created by LABOR.

It is not the act of selling something that creates WEALTH.

WEALTH is created when LABOR transforms NATURE and creates somethng
new as a result of the effort and time that labor has put into the
product. 

The act of SELLING something does not create wealth. Wealth is the
result of the fact that something new has been created in the process
of Labor acting on Nature.

A worker acting on the desert will create wealth. It is NOT that 
capital creates wealth. Capital is a legal relationship of ownership,
not an essential part of the production process. Change the legal
relationship and laws and those who currently OWN Capital will no
longer OWN it. 

Labor and Nature exist regardless of the current state of the laws.

Who is entitled to own the product of labor may change depending on
the laws, but the fact that Labor and Nature are the essential 
elements in the process doesn't change.

   (I will have to finish my response to this post in 
    a later post, but this part seemed important to begin
    to clarify)
                 Ronda
-- 
Ronda Hauben  Amateur Computerist Newsletter
P.O. Box 4344   other email addr:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126
Newsgroups: sci.econ