Thoughts on "Laborless Production"

[engelhardtlm1]

So, a discussion got started on Twitter - which is not a good platform for long, extended discussions. And my thoughts on this particular topic are long and extended. So, I came here to LJ, where the platform is MUCH more suited to such things

Comments

[tcpip]

Interesting thoughts, but further elaboration is needed and especially with regard to general trajectories if not absolutes.

For example, the opening words Human desires are unlimited. The flipside of this is that resources are scarce. become more problematic when considered as Human desires are relatively limited by their imagination; human needs are relatively limited by their biology. Resources to satisfy either are scarce, and strongly limited by ontological accessibilityCapital is both labour-replacing and labour-augmenting simultaneously; fewer, more technically proficient, workers to provide greater output. This is a tendency towards some workers (the less smart, those whose jobs are prone to automation) becoming unemployed and others (qualitative and technical work) being in receipt of higher wages (as monopsonistic labour-market effects are reduced

[engelhardtlm1]

On capitalists and entrepreneurs: I'm not sure what the origin of this distinction is, but I get it mostly from Mises. Basically, a capitalist is someone who funds productive enterprise/the purchase of capital equipment while the entrepreneur fulfills the organizing function - trying to get the right combination of resources to satisfy expected demands. A "pure capitalist" doesn't really make any decisions in this distinction - they just lend their money to an entrepreneur. A "pure entrepreneur" would start with a net worth of zero - they borrow all the funds they manage and pay some fixed rate of interest, but are the residual claimant if profits are earned. In practice, the two are often intermixed in a single person - but the functions are distinct. (I think that the entrepreneurial function tends to get divided between stockholders - who are part capitalist and part entrepreneur - and executives who are part laborer, part entrepreneur

[tcpip]

Well, of course Schumpeter is the classic reference for such a distinction. However in classic class analysis there wouldn't be too much difference as both are receiving income from the ownership of capital, which is the foundation of political economy.

Naturally enough a person is often a combination of all three classic classes (I receive some income as interest and investments, a little as landlord, most as wages).