The value of a consumable good, just like that of a service, lies in the satisfaction of human needs and wants. The value of that milk after I drink it goes into the satisfaction of my thirst and the improved nutritional state of my body. (Pretending that I consumed dairy products, that is.) It's the same value I create when I give someone a shiatsu session: I have improved the state of their body in a manner which they value.
You were talking about how much "evil rich people" take to the bank at the end of the day. A glass of drinked milk, accounted in the GDP but used to keep you alive, is not part of this equation.
The workers are the only ones creating value. The owners of capital aren't creating anything, any more than I'm creating something when I lend out my hammer. Sure, the owners are a necessary catalyst under the current system; but their necessity is an artifact of an insane system.
That's just anti-capitalist-talk to me. A robot can build an entire car, without a single worker involved. That's a pretty good example of capital creating value.
A factory costs millions of dollars, borrowed from the past efforts of other workers. Every single thing in this world is based on past efforts. All the public infrastructure around you only exists because the workers who helped building it were paid using money obtained from past efforts of other workers. The machines and materials used to build that infrastructure were also paid using past work efforts.
While corporate profit is something with an actual participation in the economy that borders the intangible or inexistent, "work efforts" are real and needed for the world to move forward. Someone needs to do something that is useful to others, to obtain whatever they need for their survival or just plain comfort. Someone built the road in front of your house because they needed to buy stuff made by other people.
And these people deserve to be rewarded for the present use of their past efforts. After all, it's their participation in the whole value creation process that is the base of the activities of those employees.
Without investment, there's no value. Not even a workforce-intensive business such as door to door sales can be formed without investment. Jobs only exist because thousands of people devoted years of their careers to storing value so it could be used to invest in the company.
It's hard for him to save enough to buy his own hammer while I'm sucking away most of the value he produces.
So what? You're mostly saying the Mr. Retired Carpenter should just go fsck himself and forget about his retirement fund, because lending it to Mr. Active Carpenter is a "moral crime" and he should be actually DONATING his fund to the said active worker.
Ownership is defined by control. If you don't control the stock, if you can't vote it in favor of your interests rather than those of the fund, you don't own it. Making up an idea of "money owners" is a sad way to try to deny this fact.
Ownership is ownership. Period. While the power gained from managing other people's money is tremendous, other people are STILL the owners of that money.
such people often become confused when it is pointed out that modern corporate capitalism is not necessary the final apex of human society, that something other than the L-curve is possible.
I was right: you're just a lousy communist. Bitch about the L curve all you want. People do not hold the same capacity, effort or opportunities. The world is real. Get over it.
You kept talking about a cute and nice society where money is controlled by some kind of all-knowing fair and balanced government, instead of all those evil rich people making use of the evil free initiative that gives people job positions to work on costly infrastructure. That's just B/S communist utopia.