> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:56:00 -0700, Shrikeback wrote:

>> On Sep 1, 5:01 pm, The Trucker verizon.net> wrote:

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

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

>>>>> "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

>

>>>> 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.

>

>>> Storing fruit in jars has nothing to do with "capital".  Investing those
>>> jars of fruit feeding the self or someone else while the self or
>>> someone else weaves a basket to be used in gathering more fruit makes the
>>> stored fruit disappear and the resulting basket is actual capital.  The
>>> fruit was __**NEVER**__ capital. You might call it savings.  You might
>>> even use it to bribe someone else into making a basket.  In that case
>>> you might call jars of fruit a store of value or even money. But the jars
>>> of fruit are __**NEVER**__ capital.

>

>> The definition of capital is:

>

>> any form of wealth capable of being employed in the production
>> of more wealth.

>

>> It is not the case that the wealth has to not disappear.

>
> Never said that.  I said that the savings must be consumed -- i.e.
> disappear.

>> The hardware used in the means of production eventually
>> wear out over time as well.  

>
> But that id irrelevant.  They are NOT consumed in the process but very
> slowly over time.

>> Presumably, the glass jar
>> itself would be considered capital.

>
> Not unless it is used in the production of further wealth.  Simply
> providing a container for savings is not an investment in producing more
> wealth that that which already exists.

>> It is employed in the
>> storage of fruit, which can then be kept until fruit is in shorter
>> supply, thus making it more valuable.  More wealth
>> is thereby created, since the value is higher.

>
> This is, in fact, one of the major flaws in Austrian and in latter day
> neoclassical economic thinking.  

> It is this very flaw that allows the
> neoclassical lying pig to refer to money as being capital.  Smith did the
> same thing with gold.  Speculative bets on shortages, or creating
> shortages do absolutely nothing to enhance production.  

> They, in fact,
> impede production.  The use of "savings" in this way is not an example of
> capital.

>> The wheel as concept, and wheels as actual physical
>> objects are certainly capital.  So my original statement
>> still stands.  If we hadn't stored our labor in the form of
>> capital, we'd still be in the stone age.

>
> The problem with your proclamation is that it is not true.  We have seen
> that money can be created from thin air and used to PRODUCE things.  The
> only "savings" necessary is actually excess production.  The money directs
> the flow of this excess.  The only true "savings" are what is available in
> nature; that which has not yet been exploited.

> So long as the planet is
> still naturally productive or naturally abundant and there is one
> unemployed person then there is ample resource for more production.
> Savings, as it typically thought of, is not necessary to real production
> of goods, capital goods or durable goods. or consumer goods.

> Without the level of capital we currently employ a good number of the
> people on this planet would most certainly die.  That is certainly agreed.
> But jars of peaches will not get us where we need to be.