| Re: Why We Don't Celebrate A "Capital Day" |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: Fred WeissFred Weiss Date: Sep 1, 2008 21:44
On Sep 1, 10:39Â pm, Les Cargill cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> He holds capital and labor as disjoint, and merely notes that
> some labor results in capital goods. Lincoln
> would have had a state-of-the-art understanding at
> the time, but human musclepower was still critical.
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) value. For example, Rockefeller needed workers to build his
refineries and distribution systems, but it had absolutely nothing to
do with those workers that he was able to lower the price of oil by
90%% (or that Carnegie was able to slash the price of steel in half).
The "workers" would have done the same muscling around either way and
as they have always done throughout the millenia. It was the
*productive genius* of these men - these supposed "Robber Barons" -
which made possible the greater efficiency of their operations - and
it was economic freedom which enabled that productive genius to
flourish and to produce great wealth (and which resulted in the ever
rising standard of living of everyone, including even the worker on
the lowest rungs of the economic chain).
> Advances at the time were applied to increase production, which
> probably led to even more demand for labor.
Yes, it did, definitely. That is precisely why we were able to easily
absorb 10's of millions of immigrants. But don't put the cart before
the horse here. It was the increase in production (really,
productivity) which created that increased demand for labor.
Innovation both reduces the need for labor - and at the very same time
creates an even greater demand for it in the new fields which the
innovation makes possible. For example, the automobile replaced most
of the work connected with horse-drawn vehicles. But it simultaneously
opened up all the work connected with the needs and opportunities of
automobile travel.
> Given the cost in manhours of a loaf of bread then, it's
> not hard to imagine this opinion... Bohm-Bawerk was 14 years old when Lincoln died. It would be a while...
I understand but keep in mind my primary criticism here is not leveled
at Adam Smith (or Lincoln). Their errors were excusable and
understandable. But Brat's is not and it was to his typical babble
that I was primarily addressing my comments.
In connection with "Labor Day" it's important to set the record
straight and to rectify the vast injustice which it represents. In
fact we most need a day where we bow our heads in gratitude to the
great "captains of industry" upon whose shoulders the economic
greatness of this country really rests.
Fred Weiss
| 
