Saturday, June 7, 2014

SOPHIE'S CHOICE OF CAPITAL OR LABOR. A FREE-MARKETS LIBERTARIAN BECOMES AN ANTI-CAPITALIST AND PERPETUATES AN ECONOMICS MYTH




So today on Forbes, Jeffrey Dorfman, a professor of economics at The University of Georgia, who touts himself as a "free market, libertarian" presents a quite false Sophie's choice description of labor vs capital, which plays well to the misinformed masses. Such labor vs capital silliness is is standard fare for economists. 

Dorfman argues that Americans don't have high-paying jobs anymore because 1) automation is killing the middle class, and 2) lower interest rates causes a substitution of capital for labor and thus the cause for automation over workers.

Dorfman says that Americans are living in a "dumbbell economy, where most of the jobs are at either the lower or upper end of the income spectrum, with few jobs left in the middle class." Dorfman started his argument that capital in the form of automation is killing jobs and a cause of low pay and that more capital makes for fewer "middle class" jobs. In short, Dorfman is a pro-capitalist arguing against capital!

Because Dorfman is an academic economist, he is fooled by economics. As I show in Why is the Economy So Horrible? Because Academia Economics is Fake, Dorfman's false beliefs fail to surprise me.

Before the industrial era, almost all Americans were poor, barely living above bare subsistence poverty. Almost all were farmers who traded little. 

Farmers had little capital. There were hand tools and maybe a few plow horses. 

The few "wealthy" Americans were those involved in shipping. Ships of shipping, of course, are capital.

Under the automation of industrialism, true wages or "real" wages if said by economists rose and rose substantially. As Americans added machinery, which, of course, is capital, workers' buying power as expressed in true pay rose.

In effort to lift his specious "dumbbell" argument, Dorfman points to yard workers, retail shelves stockers, neurosurgeons and movie stars as workers whose work can't be automated while work "rules-based" work as accountants, travel agents, bank tellers, can have their work automated with computers. Yet, the dumbbells Dorfman lifts are quite like the ones President Obama has been seen lifting. Such is for the weak.

Academician economists like Dorfman claim that wages should fall when cap spending rises and wages should rise when cap spending fall. 

To economists, wages vs capital is the Sophie's Choice of economics! In short, economists like Dorfman argue in favor of Luddites (and thus Socialists)!

Academician economists fail to see reality. They think only with their hollow theories, which fail to match real-world reality. 

Wages and capital are interlinked. Wages are a consequence of producing wealth under efficiency. The more wealth produced and gained by each worker, the higher wages can rise.

High capital spending causes high wages. Wages rise when capital spending per worker rises. 

Jobs that fetch low wages are such jobs with little capital needed to amplify the work. Yet, jobs that fetch high wages are those that take much capital to do the work.

The cap spend for yard work is tiny. Lawnmowers and leaf blowers are cheap. Many lawns can be mowed and cleaned in a day by using no-skill workers and super cheap capital.

The cap spend for neurosurgeons is much. Surgical rooms are filled with an abundance of one-of-a-kind equipment and slew of pricey technicians. A surgeon can operate only on one brain a day, maybe two.

The cap spend for movie stars is much. Movies require pricey cameras, pricey sets, pricey editing machines, and slew of pricey technicians. 

The cap spend for accountants, travel agents, bank tellers is low. Computers are cheap. Pushing data through fiber optics is even cheaper. 

Only in proportion as labor becomes pricier that it becomes profitable to use cheaper methods (capital) to amplify labor. Capital spending arises because of likely increasing returns to capital. 



THE CHART SOCIALISTS AND POLITICIANS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE AND THE CHART THAT SHOWS ECONOMISTS DON'T UNDERSTAND COMMERCIAL LIFE





Here, you can see charts for true wages and true capital spending flowing in lockstep. True wages have been falling for years in lockstep with true capital spending per prime age worker, those between 25 and 54. 

During the Clinton Good Times, wages rose. Wages fell thereafter. Workers enjoyed a small return to growing true wages during the final inflation of the Greenspan-Bernanke Credit Bubble, the largest bubble in American history.

In general, true prices have been falling for decades. And as a wage is a price, so too have true wages been falling. In Prices have been Falling for Years! Inflation? Major Deflation has been Underway Since 2007. So Why Does Life Seem Harder? I show you charts of prices for all kinds of goods falling and for years 

The Dorfman claim that entrepreneur-adventurers ask themselves "Should they hire people or should they automate?" never has reflected commercial reality. The true question is this: Is there a dearth of workers or is there an abundance of workers?

The growth in prime age working adults in America has been tremendous, up 45.3% since 1980. And not-so-coincidentally, true wages have fallen 41% and capital spending has fallen 49.5%!



True cap spending has been falling for years in America for heavy industry. Yet, cap spending for R&D and software has been rising. 



Check out the True State of the Union, Private Sector Capital to see more charts.

In You Are Going to Wind Up Working in a Gas Station. Capitalism is Dying, Americans, I show you a table of true wages for various occupations since 2000. You can see that wages rose during inflation of the massive Greenspan-Bernanke credit bubble and then fell substantially during deflation of that bubble precisely because more credit led to more capital spend and less credit to less capital spend.

All trade is about trading the right of ownership (property) in stuff, completed work or future payments in purchases and sales for profit. All of the names mankind uses for property (right of ownership) — capital, wealth, asset, collateral, stock — are names of property in various states — production, trade, estimation, deals of credit, potential sales.



Heed my dictum. Labor makes property. Capital makes property efficiently. 

All trade gets governed by one true, infrangible law and one axiom — the Law of Prices and the Axiom of Profit. The Law of Prices holds the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer set the price. The Axiom of Profit holds the sum of sales must at least equal the cost of production or the producer goes to ruin.

As I explain in Poverty and Envy, there is profit and loss for everything. We calculate profit or loss by subtracting outlays from income. No one works at a loss, whether wages less living expenses for workers or income less outlays for firms. In the absence of intervention, some things would not get sold for long as the sum of sales could not yield a profit.

Entrepreneur-adventurers are smart laborers. Entrepreneur-adventurers arise because of capital. 

Without capital, there is little reason to organize workers. Without capital, everyone lives at bare subsistence. 

All producers get constrained by the great Axiom of Profit. Capital becomes a factor in production only if in using capital, workers can produce property in stock or in work cheaper than by producing property in those things without capital. 

The capitalist buys a share of the profits from the entrepreneur-adventurer by selling cash and credit in a purchase and sale. Such a trade can arise only if the entrepreneur-adventurer can enlarge profits to cover his cost of capital and enlarge income to cover his cost of labor. In short, the permanent use of capital arises only under increasing returns whereby application of capital yields a proportional increase in output.

Little variation exists in the muscularity among individuals. Thus, little variation arises in the output owing to hand labor alone. However, with capital, variation is manifold according to various application of technology leading to degrees of efficiency.

With small production — hand labor — consumption is small precisely because low wages can only afford low payouts. In proportion as a market enlarges — more product on offer to many with low wages — wages can rise for those who make more product on offer. More product on offer only can come from efficiency achieved with capital amplifying labor.

Significant production of property to become wealth requires capital. As proportion of wealth produced by labor falls, the actual amount the laborer gets rises. More wealth produced leads to a higher living standard for those producing it. In short, capital leads to better living. 
Never are workers robbed by capital. Workers gain by capital. This is so not because capitalists are generous, but because entrepreneur-adventurers only can use capital under increasing returns.

Because of capital, workers can consume more than they could ever produce absent capital. It is owing to capital that all material progress arises. Revivalist Preachers of Born-Again Socialism like Thomas Piketty simply don't understand capitalism and thus reality.

For more on this, check out  Capitalism. Because without it, You Would be Living as a Bare Subsistence Savage and Elites Seek to Punish Workers with a Consumption Tax, or a Tax on Workers' Wealth.
Read more ...

Thursday, January 30, 2014

BUT I SPENT 150 HOURS HANDCRAFTING THAT OIL ON CANVAS! OR THE LABORER'S SILLY THEORY OF VALUE.



The story shown in the picture below is typical of most who, though, constrained by reality, fail to see reality. Thus, they suffer. Their faces emote their anguish much like the old woman painted by the Dutch master, Rembrandt.




Though the story is touching, it's fallacy. The fallacy is Ricardo's labor causes value theory, which foolish socialists like Marx took up. The fallacy was put to bed more than 160 years ago.

Labor has nothing to do with prices. Prices get set by winning bidders. 

Take two people. One can spend one million dollars buying equipment and mining rights to mine for gold and after all that effort only find an ounce of gold. Another could find gold while walking spending exactly nothing. 

Is the ounce of gold worth a million because that is what the miner paid, what it cost him to get? No!

Right now, both the miner and the finder could get $1242.80 (as of 2014.Jan.30) for selling that ounce and that much alone. Why? The price gets set by winning bidders against all gold on offer for sale right now.

The miner put in time, effort, dedication, smarts, training, and much more. The finder put in nothing.

Or say someone has inherited purported fine-crafted gold jewelry from a dear lost relative and melted that jewelry down to support a meth habit, the gold in that jewelry would fetch at the same rate of all gold, $1242.80 an ounce. Once again, no outlay was made for that gold coming into the methhead's possession as property.

All prices adhere to the one and only true law of trade, the Law of Price the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer sets the price. Prices get set by winning bidders who possess the means — these days legal tender cash or credit — in the face of what is on offer.

If no one bids for anything made, no matter how skillfully done, it's worthless. If bids are below cost, oh well. That is an signal that most everyone in a society of property deem the work worthless and a waste of resources. The artist should find other work.

Labor is the poor man's capital. The expression of skills through time, which is called work, is a product.  Labor is the outlay to turn something into property and nothing more. Only things of property can be bought and sold in purchase and sale for cash or credit.

Trade is predicated on property and profits and not effort and skill. Anyone must gain property, which is the right of ownership and never the thing owned, before enjoying or possessing a thing. If anyone fails to buy something to gain property in it, but instead takes it, that is called stealing. 

Anyone can buy stuff because that one has produced profit (earnings) in past and has been rewarded or others expect another shall produce profit in future, which we call confidence, and thus give credit to another. 

Profit arises because of property others want to possess under the constraint of the great Axiom of Profit —  the sum of sales must at least equal the cost of production, otherwise the producer goes to ruin. And of course, the sum of sales arises from the quantity of things sold times price. And price gets set by winning bidders of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer.

So the whole trick of producing property in pursuit of profits is to produce what others want, to be in service to others. And that is what being in society of property is all about,  the only society in which strangers can live, even when government has grown to take control of that society and has distorted all relationships of man with man in society of property.

If labor were what caused price, then why can Apple earn a premium on iPhones relative to all other touch screen phones? Why aren't Apple execs accepting bids ( charging ) for what it cost them to get the phones made? 

If labor set prices because cost were to be the cause of price, then why does anyone go out of business? Labor has nothing to with price. Prices get set by winning bidders who must first gain property in something before they can use it.

No one works at a loss (Wages - Living Expenses or Sales - Outlay) unless politicians swoop in and subsidize that one with Section 8, SNAP and the like. When politicians give  workers welfare to subsidize their living, in effect, politicians subsidize firms that can pay wages precisely because of welfare given to workers (see: GREEDY CAPITALIST COMPLAINS ABOUT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE EXPENSE AND QUITS HIS BUSINESS and Wile E. Coyote, Campground Businessman Super Genius).

Any worker gets paid to produce. His or her wage arises against the lack of willingness of another slightly better and smarter, who absent what she or he is doing, could bid lower than the worker being more efficient at living or could bid higher than the worker being able to produce more in any time span.

All the same, prices get set by those willing to cough up the cash or credit to buy. Sellers must accept those bids to get sales. Would-be sellers can refuse those bids and earn nothing. They can hold back inventory in hopes of future bidders bidding up prices.

People fail to appreciate the role of marketers and those in advertising who help to present products to those who most willingly can appreciate how a product can fit within their lives.

Marketers are quite like commodities speculators in the respect of pushing prices along to keep prices high enough so that manufacturers, be that automated or hand-crafted, can live to make another day, and yet against each other, low enough so that many can enjoy the fruits of others.

It's too bad that many perceive, wrongly, that marketers are "middlemen" who are little more than tricksters and knaves. Marketers keep people in business.

The successful stick to their knitting as it were and hire marketers to get them the best price possible. The reward for doing so is a share of the increase.

To savages, a Rembrandt likely would be worthless compared to spears. The savage wouldn't know he could sell the Rembrandt to someone who would esteem it and buy thousands of spears.

Yet, where art gets esteemed by others, it is the winning bidder who sets the price for a Rembrandt as nothing in trade ever can violate the Law of Price, the same as nothing can violate the Laws of Thermodynamics or the Law of Gravity. So even a one-off like a famous artwork sells, not because of purported scarcity, but because someone else has property (right of ownership) in it.

The price of a Rembrandt arises not because it is rare (scarce), but because of rivalry of bidders, only one of whom can win with the highest bid precisely because that one has the most cash or credit, which he is willing to sell in a purchase and sale, to buy a Rembrandt. 

Egghead Ph.D. academicians, who call themselves economists, long ago realized the error of Ricardo. Rightly, they came to see that labor is not the source of value (price). Yet, the next round of economists decided to commit their own fallacy and from which they base their entire myth of economics, that of scarcity and utility cause value (price). See my work WHY IS THE ECONOMY SO HORRIBLE? BECAUSE ACADEMIA ECONOMICS IS FAKE to discover in less than 3 minutes, why economics is bogus, a myth, a b.s. story.

Utility as a source of price (value) is quite false as it imbues into things intrinsic value. Scarcity as a source of price also is quite false. 

The earth is awash in water, but men are successful sellers of bottled water right next to giant lakes and rivers. Why can do they do so? Bottling creates property. 

Many would believe that a Rembrandt is worth much because he is dead and thus can not make any more. So any Rembrandt is a one-off. Yet, millions have watched and learn to paint from Bob Ross, each creating their own one-offs. Each one being unique makes each one scarce. Each Joe Blow also is a one-off. 


Yet, no one trawls garage sales bidding outrageous sums for the one-offs of the Joe Blows of our world. 

And so, because economists believe from false premises, their conclusions are false, necessarily so, even when remaining logically consistent from false premises to false conclusions. It doesn't matter if that neoclassical school is the Keynesian school or the Austrian school. 

There is no escaping reality. Anyone can only deny reality. 

Enjoy some Rembrandt!


Read more ...

Monday, January 6, 2014

WILE E. COYOTE, CAMPGROUND BUSINESSMAN SUPER GENIUS

In GREEDY CAPITALIST COMPLAINS ABOUT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE EXPENSE AND QUITS HIS BUSINESS, I reveal that a former Ventura County businessman who failed to make a go of business in Ventura County using seasonal labor had his labor expense subsidized by taxpayers for as long as he operated in Ventura County. 

His lackeys didn't like learning about reality as such didn't fit into their hyper-indoctrination mindset, so they endeavored to beg for my attention.


Entrepreneurs must face reality if they want the gains of profit. The Coyote suffers from incompetency. The Coyote faces the same price for labor as all other businessmen in Ventura County who compete for workers of such skills. His competitors aren't merely camp ground operators, though in this county, that would be the State (McGrath State Beach), the operator of Lake Casitas and a few slumlord homeless RV parks. His competitors are all those also bidding for that kind of unskilled labor.


So the Coyote faces the same labor constraint as all other employers in Ventura County who can not run their operations without that same kind of labor. Thus, it is other factors for which the Coyote hasn't demonstrated competency that has led him to exit the field.
If the Coyote is pure entrepreneur, so what? He had nothing at risk. Only the capitalist who lends is the one who faces loss and thus is the only one who puts at-risk anything.
If the Coyote is an entrepreneur-capitalist, then he has been experiencing an unforeseen loss by change or what Mangolt described as a technical loss while more prudent businessmen know such as a loss of non-occurrence. The tide of travel turns from California seashores to Colorado mountains. So the Coyote, if as capitalist, should exit the field and put his remaining capital, if any, to a better and higher use.
Clearly, there are too many campgrounds in Ventura County and not enough winning bidders of demand for camping slots willing to bid prices high enough for the Coyote to break even.
The facts remain about UI and the Coyote. For every year he operated and laid off workers while also turning a gain of profit, the Coyote earned that gain on the backs of taxpayers who never collected UI but paid taxes for it and other businessmen who never laid off workers but paid taxes for UI. 

The Coyote has a legit gripe about Agent Smiths shaking him down for permits and the like. However, he lacks any grounds for complaint about UI as likely without it, he would have been out of business long ago.
As well, all should question the skills of the Coyote as a businessman. The excessive lawsuits from factions of employees reveals the Coyote's incompetence regarding communication, persuasion and group dynamics.
The Coyote can't gain profit because the sum of his sales on prices set by winning bidders for campground slots fail to exceed his cost of production.
The worst bit is that taxpayers have been subsidizing the Coyote's cost of production for all the years he operated his business in Ventura County as taxpayers forced to pay taxes or face imprisonment subsidized the Coyote's seasonal payroll, which let him pay a price of wages below the actual market rate absent intervention.

What they need is a lesson in business and commercial economics. 




1) Direct labor costs never are included as overhead in cost accounting. It is debatable that UI is overhead, as it is a variable cost dependent solely on actual fluctuating payroll. No one considers labor costs as overhead. The rate for UI is fixed by states' legislators, but the outlay is variable to the outlay for direct labor employed in any payroll period.
Typical overhead would be fixed cost outlays for a lease and insurance, which would be any costs inescapable regardless of chosen production methods and materials.
2) A wage is a price and conforms to the one, true, infrangible and only law of trade, the Law of Prices. The Law of Prices holds the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer sets the price.
Employers are sellers of money (these days credit) who buy skills through time, which we call labor, or the "poor man's capital".
Workers are buyers of money / credit, which we call wages and are sellers of expressed skills through time.
In most job markets, inter-employer competition has employers engage in English auctions for workers, while inter-worker competition has workers engage in Dutch auctions for jobs.
Where the winning bidders of employers and winning bidders of work seekers intersect, that is the clearing price, which, when it involves work, we call it a wage.
Both workers and employers get constrained by the Axiom of Profit — the sum of sales must at least equal the cost of production, otherwise the producer goes to ruin.
In short, employers can bid up for workers only where what gets sold as the product from the workers exactly equals the cost to produce it. Likewise, workers can bid down for work only where what they get paid equals what it costs them to live.
There are too many no-skilled Americans Dutch-bidding themselves and not enough employers who need workers bad enough to train those workers or provide them capital precisely because there is too much regulation like minimum wage laws, workers' comp, social security; and too much welfare giving unearned buying power, both which interfere in the fair, just working of markets.
2) All producers get constrained by the great Axiom of Profit. The Axiom of Profit holds the sum of sales must at least equal the cost of production or the producer goes to ruin.
Even if the winning bids for labor take up the budget of a firm, if that firm can not earn sales exceeding costs, whatever that cost profile is, that firm goes to ruin.
3) The Coyote has been gaining unearned profits for all the years he operated his business, beggaring other businessmen as well as workers. In the absence of UI, the Coyote would have faced lower a profit margin on much higher expenses as his cost of doing business no longer would be subsidized by firms that pay UI but don't layoff workers and by workers who pay UI but don't collect UI, as well as subsidized by all taxpayers who pay for welfare subsidies to his income-qualifying workers likely who collect food stamps (SNAP) and Section 8 (subsidized housing).
It's too much to ask of many who succumb to peer pressure and the effects of hyper-indoctrination to see the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. People hate truth, even more so when it gets in the way of the fantasies of their minds. Cognitive dissonance is such an amusing thing to watch in others.
Any pro free-market, pro-capitalism, pro society of property, pro individualist would point out the hypocrisy of those like the Coyote who fail to make it on their own merits and cry when the rules change, rules that once favored their inefficient ways.


Some of us want to see an end to UI, which is the only fair move for workers and efficiency-driven, competitive employers so that weaklings like the Coyote never take the field of competition.
Big governmentalists are the same, it doesn't matter whether a Democrat leftist or Republican rightist. 



Read more ...

Saturday, January 4, 2014

GREEDY CAPITALIST COMPLAINS ABOUT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE EXPENSE AND QUITS HIS BUSINESS

So someone brought to me a story about a guy shuttering his business in Ventura County, California (see: A Milestone to Celebrate: I Have Closed All My Businesses in Ventura County, California)
What caught my eye is this complaint of his:
In most states we pay a percent or two of wages for unemployment insurance.  In California we pay almost 7%.  Our summer seasonal employees often take the winter off, working only in the summer, but claim unemployment insurance anyway.  They are supposed to be looking for work, but they seldom are and California refuses to police the matter.  Several couples spend the whole winter in Mexico, collecting unemployment all the while.  So I have to pay a fortune to support these folks' winter vacations.

While anyone can be sympathetic to this guy's sob story about suffering at the hands of Agent Smiths of the government matrix, some of which is true, the man himself fails to see reality.

The Coyote has been gaining unearned profits for all the years he operated his business, beggaring other businessmen as well as workers. In the absence of UI, the Coyote would have faced a lower profit margin on much higher expenses.

It is an unassailable fact of trade, that absent UI, wages would rise. No one would work at a loss (wages - living expenses). Market forces would force employers to pay more.

A wage is a price and conforms to the one, true, infrangible and only law of trade, the Law of Prices. The Law of Prices holds the winning bids of purchase and sale in the face of what is on offer set the price.

All producers get constrained by the great Axiom of Profit. The Axiom of Profit holds the sum of sales must at least equal the cost of production or the producer goes to ruin.

All laborers also are capitalists as labor is the poor man's capital. Labor is the sale of work through time.

As the Coyote, his laborers must get a price (wage) so the sum of the sales (work) must at least equal their living expenses (cost of production) otherwise, there is no incentive to work.

The unemployment insurance program in California as in any state, lets any business operator engage in beggar-thy-neighbor action both upon all employees who have taxes levied against them for this program but never who collect benefits at least equal to taxes they have paid as well as all other business operators who have paid more in UI taxes than have accrued net terminated employees.

Absent unemployment insurance, even if hands would remain idle, employers would need to pay for idle hands in the form of higher wages to induce workers to at least break-even (wages equaling cost of living). It would matter not that higher paychecks would come during the work season with none coming off-season or if paychecks would be spread out over a 12-month period.

With the presence of UI, business operators pay less than full, free-market wages into a fund, as UI is a percentage levied against active payroll. UI compensation lets a seasonal, laid-off worker break-even because UI as welfare subsidizes the laborer revenue (wages) against living expenses to achieve break even.
Absent UI, it would have been the decision of the Coyote to deploy his efforts and capital elsewhere if not wanting to earn less.

So, too, then without the subsidy to the Coyote and his workers, perhaps his product never would have come to market, which is what should happen in a system where people's profits (excess earnings) let them hold referendums on what everyone else should make and thus inhibition of anything not brought to market owing to efficiency under the constraint of the Axiom of Profit in the face of the Law of Prices.
The true meaning of greed is wanting to get something without honest exchange. So wanting to gain property (right of ownership) in something (excess profits) without paying for it (higher wages absent external subsidy) is the picture perfect definition of greed.

The right move is the end UI and all political interference in commerce. That idea frightens more businessmen to a greater degree than it does the people as too many businessmen fear authentic, manly competition.

This is why Americans suffer from crony politics, crony governance and crony regulatory capture. UI is expression of that cronyism.

Beggaring-thy-neighbors is the same whether done by politicians on behalf of government bureaucrats as the means to maintain power or by self-deceived capitalist-entrepreneurs shafting everyone else for their inefficiency and greedy quest for unearned profits.
Read more ...