"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the
fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first
existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher
consideration."

-- Lincoln

On Sep 1, 8:14 am, Bret Cahill aol.com> wrote:

While that is true, if we didn't store our labor in the
form of capital, we'd still be in the stone age right
now.

On Sep 1, 1:44 pm, Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:

Actually, it's not true. "Capital" has relatively little to do with
"labor". It is the product primarily of *intelligence* and its value
resides not in whatever labor may have gone into achieving it, but in
the creative and productive way in which it is applied to improve our
lives, i.e. investment.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:44:44 -0700, Shrikeback wrote:

On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 14:04:03 -0700, Fred Weiss wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:

Lincoln lived in a time when labor was much more of a fraction of
production than it is now. And his derivation is 100%% correct -
capital without labor is utterly meaningless.

To the tread title: a child asks "Mommy, why is there a Mother's
Day and a Father's Day but there is no Children's Day?"

"Because every day is children's day."

Fred Weiss wrote:

On Sep 1, 10:39 pm, Les Cargill cfl.rr.com> wrote:

True, musclepower was critical and to a certain extent still is
(although its importance is ever diminishing). My point only was that
the "labor" component of capital is a negligible part of its
(economic...

On Sep 1, 8:10 pm, The Trucker verizon.net> wrote:

Well, that effectively summarizes your vast ignorance of the field of
ecoomics.

(As it happens, Hayek is mixed bag. But that is a separate subject.)

Fred Weiss

On Sep 1, 8:01 pm, The Trucker verizon.net> wrote:

That's true -and that is precisely the error in the "labor theory of
value".

What is capital is inventing a process to make jars at half the
previous price and/or to make them stronger and/or lighter in weight
to make them easier to transport or store. And *that* has virtually
nothing to do with labor and the labor component of such an idea is
negligible. In fact in a way the very purpose of capital is to reduce
the use of labor. Hence the concept of "labor-saving".

It was capitalism - not laborers or unions - which took this to a
level unimaginable in past eras but which showered unparalled bounty
onto laborers who had to do nothing more than they had always done by
plodding off to work while reaping the benefits in an ever rising
standard of living. The same plodding, i.e. the same labor, but far
greater benefits. That was the incalculable gift of those who it was
alleged were robbing them (and the great injustice of that
accusation).

Fred Weiss