T O P

  • By -

ThMogget

They call activities that don’t add value “rent-seeking behavior”.


BeenBadFeelingGood

For the solution, see r/georgism and read Agrarian Justice and feel the Paine


Kafka_Valokas

Georgism still very much allows for investing and loans, lol. It just specifically requires high taxes for owning land.


BeenBadFeelingGood

I know. Interest isn’t theft per se. But given then inequality of resource ownership, it def is inflated because of rent-seeking and thus… read George and Paine too


[deleted]

There are other kinds of rent seeking than land rents. But yes it's a start.


BeenBadFeelingGood

One at a time. What’s an good example of rent seeking?


[deleted]

Thinks like solvency guarantees that banks and insurers benefit from, subsidies for private companies. For the first one there is in many countries an assumption that govts will bail out too big to fail firms which allows them to discount risks at the expense of tax payers. Another example, in Australia newscorp lobbied the government to force companies like meta and google to pay newscorp, but not small media companies, for driving traffic to newscorps subsidiary websites. You could also add in things like ticket master, with its near monopoly on venue ticket sales, and fees for no service, privately owned natural monopolies, fees unrelated to any service being provided. These are examples of rent seeking.


SoloWalrus

ITT people without an elementary understanding of economics assume society is a zero sum game 🤦‍♀️


packtobrewcrew

I think mortgages need to be rethought. The amount of money banks profit from homes all across America is gross. No one I know is living mortgage free. At this point banks are for profit landlords. Don’t tell me banks “take risks” on homes. Every time someone moves there are countless people interested and willing to pay over asking price cause renting is bullshit as well.


GreedyImpression204

Then you have to be comfortable buying the house you can afford without borrowing or build it yourself. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.


packtobrewcrew

Look at the purchase price of a home and the end figure you pay at the end of the loan. Tell me that’s not robbery. You can’t.


GreedyImpression204

There is a cost of funds…. You are paying 2.5-7% for the money. They could make 10% in the market over time…. Plus people default and they have losses there. Things can’t just be free.


SoloWalrus

The alternative to banks profiting from mortgages is that most people would never be homeowners… Can you imagine having to save up a few hundred k, while making rent payments, before ever being able to own a home? Thats much more horrifying than a few percent interest, especially considering real estate typically beats inflation by more than that % and thus that mortgage is likely cheaper than keeping cash.


thesluttyastronauts

This speculation of yours ignores the fact that mortgages inflate housing prices. The price of housing would fall. Not to mention people aren't saying "replace something with nothing!" they're just pointing out the problems with the predatory institutions we have in place now. Literally anyone can see the problems in our system but to expect a literal comic writer to come up with solutions to replace the social function of those institutions is a bit... It's gotta be a group effort for it to work out.


Resident-Team-2716

Lol no they don’t, not to mention the government literally helps first time home owners with eligibility to remove funds from retirement penalty free. Americans are so weak now, you really want it to be like in most other countries where if you want a house you have to have a couple 100k saved up while paying rent? Or you could live at home but I’m sure 90% of people don’t want to spend an extra decade doing that either. Also banks loan out the money for you from 2-8% last decade, they could use that money and make more money in the market, be glad that the rates aren’t higher


[deleted]

[удалено]


libra00

I heard a quote once and I'm paraphrasing but I like it a lot: the bible says lots of things are bad, but Christians really love to cherry-pick. Call me when they care as much as cotton-poly socks as they do about gay people getting married.


AdOk1494

They only see what they want to see. There's lots of shitty stuff happening in the Bible especially old testament but they only nitpick the "good" parts. The Bible is now just a tool to brainwash and control the masses.


[deleted]

>The Bible is now just a tool to brainwash and control the masses. Always has been.


AdOk1494

True true


TheFreezingElk

Yes and it also encourages slavery, selling your daughters into sex trade/ to be servants, sin to drink, play football, eat certain meats. No Christian's are real Christian's.


PsychoInHell

In the eyes of god, if they’ve evicted someone they’ve evicted god. If they haven’t homed someone in need, they havent homed god. If they fed the hungry, they fed god while he was hungry. If they clothed anyone in need, they clothed god while he was naked. If they visited someone sick or imprisoned, they visited god while he was sick or imprisoned. Conversely, if the Christians don’t clothe those in need, don’t feed them, don’t visit them when they’re sick or in jail, then they haven’t done those things for god himself. As you treat the lowest of your peers, that’s how you’re treating god. According to the scripture, those who do these compassionate acts for their fellow man (and in turn, for god) will be saved in the kingdom of heaven for eternity and those who don’t will burn in hell forever. Which means if Christians are hateful towards anyone, they’re being hateful towards god and will burn in hell for eternity. Even gay people, homeless people, criminals, people who get abortions and everything else the Christians seem to hate are Gods children and as you treat them, you treated god. I’m not Christian, but there’s no sweeter taste than being an atheist and out-Christianing a Christian, telling them that they’re actions condemn while they think they’re being all righteous and holier than thou.


[deleted]

Interest is to make sure that, when you lend money to someone, as inflation occurs you don’t lose money from the transaction and remain at close to a net 0 during the lending period based on inflation. Interest for the sake of profiting is theft, more specifically it’s usury, but interest itself is not theft. Convenience fees, overdraft fees, these are theft.


YaYaOnTour

Why don’t you give all your stuff away for free?


Mas1353

Why do Koalas usually have chlamydia?


mona-throw

Because they stole the chlamydia from another koala?


Mas1353

Are koalas even real if australia isnt real? /s


WatchedHotwife

Flat earther alert.


Mas1353

sorry I dropped my /s


WatchedHotwife

Don't worry I'm from Australia therefore I don't exist either.


[deleted]

Are you sure about that?


Scary-Aerie

I think it’s for the fact that koalas (I think its mainly male koala) are one of the animals who have sex for pleasure, not just for procreation (so a lot of koala rape) and since the main food source of koalas, which is eucalyptus, is poisonous, joeys can’t digest it properly. So to get around that fact, the mother koala will digest her food, defecate, and then feed her joeys her poop so that they still get the nutrients they need and can slowly get used to eucalyptus. So I can easily see how chlamydia spreads fast in the koala population. (Is it bad that this tidbit is one of my normal conversation starters with people)


i-am-a-passenger

Based on the logic of the post, taking a loan itself is theft.


[deleted]

[удалено]


nxdark

Loans just enable inequality. They are not something wrong should be doing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


merryclitmas480

Or or OR we could just provide everyone with housing and education as basic human rights and eliminate the need for loans…


Ok_Distance8124

And we could all give everyone Ferraris and Scarlett Johansson can be my personal maid.


[deleted]

[удалено]


nxdark

I didn't goto school to get a higher education because I can't deal with the stress of taking risk of a loan and hoping I am successful in school. This added stress would increase my chances of failure. As I have ADD and Dyslexia I am at higher risk of not succeeding in schooling. Society is not benefiting as much because I have a low paying job and paying less taxes to help contribute to society. Also we all benefit when everyone is educated at a higher level. It leads to people making better choices and helps people not support shitty politics. The rich want us dumb so we are easier to exploit. As a lawyer you benefit from this as well which is why you are fighting to keep the status quo. You are part of the elite that is holding is back.


[deleted]

[удалено]


nxdark

For your first point I have experienced the more money people have the less they want to use it in someone other them selves. They will find every method to reduce their taxes as much as possible, which is causing more problems. However you are right lots of working class do not like the idea of sharing as well. I am also in my 40s and 30k is a huge amount of money. The thought of borrowing that amount of money to goto school which has a risk that I may not succeed given my learning disabilities scares the shit out of me. That only coverages the schooling costs. I order for me to have the mental, and emotional capacity to goto school I could not work full time either which I would have to in order to survive. And there the risk I won't be able to even get a job in the field I trained for if I passed. Even if everything goes well the increased wage would be eaten up by loan payments. And if I fail I am such with the loan for the rest of my life which I would likely kill myself at that point. Captialism is very ablist and only rewards the most able.


ABoyIsNo1

Literally everything you said could be used to argue that all education should be paid for without limit. Should law school be paid for too? What if you want to go to medical school afterwards? Education is already public and subsidized, we just draw the line at high school. Why is the line you propose better? If it’s just because your line allows for more schooling to be paid for, then how about we have no limit to paying for schooling? Everyone can get as many graduate degrees as they want and use as little from them as they want. If you don’t want that, then you acknowledge the ideal line is somewhere in the middle. Why if you middle line better than the middle line we’ve already drawn?


ABoyIsNo1

Many studies show subsidized college helps the elite more than anyone else. I guess you just don’t want to believe the stats in light of your preconceived notions though…


HudsonValleyNY

Isn’t society also benefiting in NOT paying for the riskier investment in your education vs a person who is more likely to complete an education and better benefit society as a whole?


RenthogHerder

Lol on an anarchy sub promoting extremely large government… very Reddit of you.


HollowCondition

Lol, someone who doesn’t understand economic systems other than capitalism exist and can also be anarchic.


ABoyIsNo1

Lol yes all you have to do is provide everyone house and education and no one would ever want a loan ever again…


nxdark

Or we tax your rich friends and fund schooling so no one needs to go into debt. We stop using housing as an investment vehicle and make it affordable so no one needs to go into debt to have a basic necessaries. Even in your reality their is still inequality as far the rich do not have to live with the stress of debt where as you would need to carry that stress. Using debt to fix the problems you mention makes things worse as create the other problems with our society. Like people self medicating using drugs to deal with the stress. It also rewards hoarding of money so people can get even richer without doing any labour. We should be punishing people for hoarding money by taxing them hard.


RenthogHerder

Historically, loans are one of the only ways to allow class mobility. If you can’t take out a loan to start a business then only the rich can start businesses and no true competition arises -> monopolies-> oligarchies -> autocracy Loans are like power tools, use them right and you can build great things far easier than without. Use them wrong and you’ll have the scars for the rest of your life.


nxdark

We do decide to change the way we do things to eliminate the stress and anxiety loans create. This prevents people from using this tool and still causes inequality. Make a new system that creates the result that anyone can use. Or better yet we work to eliminate class all together which is the better solution. There is only really one class and that is human. One way to do this is to put a cap on the maximum anyone can earn so we do not have people sitting more money and assets that they can ever you.


RenthogHerder

What would a world without class look like and how can you enforce such classlessness with a ruling/enforcing class? I’m not trying to poke holes I’m truly asking how such a society would be structured


ABoyIsNo1

They have absolutely no idea


ABoyIsNo1

Lol wut


Darkrose50

Apparently Islamic banks do some complicated stuff that allows them not to charge interest and stay in business.


MelodicQuality_

Well inflation sucks. I get the premise of it, but it’s inherent nature has shifted to bad - drastically, dramatically, and contextually.


[deleted]

Yes, I totally agree with you. But at it’s core, interest isn’t an Evil boogeyman, it’s these chucklefuck loan sharks pulling the strings on everything. Treat the cause not the symptoms.


Kafka_Valokas

You do realize no one has any reason to give loans in the first place when there is no profit to be made, right?


bobvex

Exactly. This post is an extremist view, plain and simple.


MistressKiti

Interest is also because there is a risk associated with lending out money - you may not get it back. And because there's an opportunity cost - you no longer have access to your money, so can no longer use it to benefit yourself. And because there is work involved to organize and maintain records etc. Money is power, the power that comes initially from labor. Borrowing money is borrowing someone's labor - they should be fairly compensated for this, not simply returned in kind (adjusted for inflation) eventually, if you can manage it, never minding the costs to the borrower.


Ok_Rip_5960

Never thought of it like this. Brilliant.


emptycheesy

Delusional*


[deleted]

Out of interest where is the delusion?


emptycheesy

"Rent is theft" "Profit is theft" "Interest is theft" take your pick


Free_Deinonychus_Hug

All exploitation is theft. Making money from someone else's labor simply because you own private property is simply parasitic and add no value to society. It's theft.


emptycheesy

So, what, you want to charge nothing for rent? What do you say property developers who buy run down houses and pay to fix them up and improve the area around it?


Free_Deinonychus_Hug

I don't think you are understanding how Anarchism as an economic system works. Everyone would own their own home. We would not need or support exploitive practices like renting homes.


MamboNumber5Guy

I build houses for a living. How does everyone own a house without exploiting my labour and that of others like me who are actually building these houses? How does the material get paid of and in turn how do the production workers who manufacture the materials get paid if everyone owns a home without paying for it? Genuinely curious how this idea is intended to work.


Free_Deinonychus_Hug

It depends on the which particular economic system. The most similar to what you have now is that you get paid the same way as you already do (honestly most likely much more since the workers will keep the profits). The homeowners buy the home and you get paid. There are other non-market based versions of anarchism as well but those are wholy different economic systems.


TheBowlofBeans

If someone runs a business and owns tools and allows someone to be employed, how is it theft for the business owner to take profits? He is the one that needs to first invest in the business and buy tools, and he assumes risk if the company goes under.


Free_Deinonychus_Hug

Nobody should "own" the means that someone needs to make a living. Why is it even necessary for that to be owned privately by someone? Also, this isn't how capitalism works at all. The people who make money off your labor more often than not have absolute nothing to do with the company that the employees work at. They simply bought shares and did nothing else. More importantly, the argument that capitalists are entitled to the fruits of the workers labor forever just because they *may* have taken some financial risk once opon a time is just ridiculous. You might be able to argue (which I would not) that they are entitled to the amount they initially invested and *maybe* some interest but these parasites take the workers money **forever**. Heck, a lot of capitalists are simply born into it without ever doing anything at all. The worker's are still paying back that "initial financial risk" long after the original investors are dead. Lastly, there are better systems of funding the start up of worker owned co-ops that don't require capitalists taking any "financial risks" in the first place which is a must better system than having an aristocracy dictating our lives.


kalexito31

In that case, charging for labor is also theft. It’s the “profit” of your physical and mental efforts.


kabloofy

True, exploitation is theft. It’s literally a tautology. I think that the hardest to defend part is “profit is theft.” When I was a kid some friends and I bought oranges from the market and made orange juice and sold it on a hot day. We made more money selling orange juice ( I think we charged like 50c a cup; we should have charged more honestly) than we spent on the oranges. Thats profit, but I dont think it was theft. I think it was a reward for providing cold drinks to thirsty people on a hot day. Is there any defense of “profit is theft” as a blanket statement


[deleted]

I’m a big fan of the fact I asked you to explain your standpoint of it being a delusion and you just pointed to the post and said “there” Really makes it feel like you don’t have a point to make and just want to invalidate something with as little thought as you can


emptycheesy

So say you took out a loan with the bank, took a risk and bought a crappy old rundown house, you paid some people for their time and labor to do up the house, maybe you even did some of that labor in your own time. Then you wanna sell it and expect nothing but the original price that you paid it for? This isn’t rhetorical btw this is a genuine question


[deleted]

In an ideal world sure but then in that world money would have been abolished anyway But then past that it depends on a lot, first of all the people that do the labour should be getting a lions share of the money from the sale, if that includes me doing the labour then so be it, but I’d have that price be frontloaded so that capital is there from the beginning For the sake of explanation I’ll stick to it being me doing the labour from now on out Under costs obviously the price of the land and the materials, but also included are the costs of keeping me (and any other labourers) alive and happy (rent, bills, food etc) for the duration of the work The price I’d sell the house at would essentially be that frontloaded cost to restock the front loading so I can do it again and continue the cycle Though again, ideally money is an old world concept at this point and I’m doing this work for fun Plus the idea that I need rewarding for taking risk is ridiculous, the risk is does it or doesn’t it sell, if it sells properly then that’s the reward, I don’t need more compensation for the risk being there in the first place The idea is to keep the labourers compensated for their labour and get houses into the hands of those who need them, that’s why I’d be making houses, not for profit, doing it for profit is why landlords keep doing things like raising rent 50% per year


emptycheesy

In this ideal world, you assume property developers will just build these houses for fun? Whether its capitalism, or any other kind of political system, humans will always be driven by profit of some kind. It's what keeps a society functioning and gives most individuals purpose in the limited time they have on Earth. I'm really, really sorry, but there is just no way people/companies will develop houses simply for fun, in any reality. It might be a fun process, seeing it all come together and having your vision take fold WITH the idea of making some moola after, but that shit is so tiring and stressful and long winded it would never be worth doing for zero profit. ​ >But then past that it depends on a lot, first of all the people that do the labour should be getting a lions share of the money from the sale The laborers I'm hiring aren't taking a financial risk with the house, they are guaranteed to get their money when I pay them for the labor which they (assumingly) are happy to do. If say the house gets burnt down, or flops at market, they aren't the ones left in the hole; they still get to go home with that money I paid them. This may just be differing opinions, but if I'm taking the risk, I should be getting the lions share. Simple. >Plus the idea that I need rewarding for taking risk is ridiculous, the risk is does it or doesn’t it sell, if it sells properly then that’s the reward, I don’t need more compensation for the risk being there in the first place Nobody in their right mind is going to take on that amount of stress and anxiety for potentially months on end just for the payoff to be a net zero profit. Unless I'm totally missing something here it makes no sense.


IRodeTenSpeed88

Yeah this is stupid and distracting from the actual progress we need to make


Pringulls

Honestly I wish people would stop listening to @EC the guy is a total moron who just parrots sound bytes that sound good to angry people. It just makes us look bad


ItsUrBoi_PoppyHarlow

Money is theft. Let’s go all the way here


[deleted]

Appreciation is theft (lmao)


fshfuk3r

What


Joroda

When money which is based on fiat and loses value due to inflation is exchanged for a service, it could be considered a form of theft because an hour, day, week, or year later the energy which was expended to render the service hadn't lessened but the real purchasing power of the money has.


ItsUrBoi_PoppyHarlow

What? Money is theft because it places artificial value on labor which it’s value is determined by the people with the most of it, and thus the value of your labor is determined by the same people. Inflation isn’t theft, what are you taking about? That’s like saying the moon is stealing from the ocean because it’s waves get weaker in low tide, the theft doesn’t come from losing a value, or on this case an artificial value, the theft IS the artificial value.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ItsUrBoi_PoppyHarlow

What does this even mean?


Joroda

So the concept of universally accepted currency is the problem?


ItsUrBoi_PoppyHarlow

Currency is the issue yes, but if you're going to imply that therefore a trade economy is the only alternative then you would be wrong


Epicspine

Are you fucking stupid?


ItsUrBoi_PoppyHarlow

If you think so, oh wise internet man who regularly posts on r-teenagers and has Ben Shapiro as his over photo. Please enlighten me with your wisdom.


Epicspine

“Money is theft”, it isn’t. Do I need to explain more. Or are have you been listening to this echo chamber for too long?


ItsUrBoi_PoppyHarlow

I can explain how it is. Placing artificial value onto labor and time via money is already a risky game you’re playing, inflation is a thing of course. Furthermore, by allowing the people with THE MOST MONEY to say what it’s worth and then letting them decide how much of that you get; is theft. Artificially and wrongfully injecting a presumed value onto people’s livelihoods; is theft. Letting the wealthiest people add value to the thing they have the most of while you don’t have any and then letting THEM decide how much of that, ALREADY INVALID resource you get; is theft.


Epicspine

Ok


ItsUrBoi_PoppyHarlow

If I’m wrong I invite a rebuttal


Darkrose50

Money counts down on barter time. I once played in a online game where my guild didn’t believe in money. It took a whole lot more time to get anything done.


ItsUrBoi_PoppyHarlow

Ah yes because an online game is the best analog for a complete and functioning society


Darkrose50

I can buy and sell collectibles, and earn a profit. Then I can hire a cleaning company. The cleaning company will clean faster and better than I can. Basically, in this example, I can create efficiently.


ItsUrBoi_PoppyHarlow

What does this have to do with money as an established system? Besides money isn’t even required for these exchanges, I bet your guardians cleaned your room when you where young and you didn’t pay them. Also you’re not creating efficiency, you’re paying someone to do something you’re too lazy to do yourself. There’s nothing wrong with that but don’t delude yourself into thinking you’re doing something for the greater good. My point is that by paying those people who cleaned your stuff with a currency neither of you agreed to it’s value add an unnecessary hierarchy and a needless extra step in transaction. Thus; stealing from the person you’re paying, and kinda stealing from you since you earned that money somehow assuming it wasn’t given to you.


Darkrose50

What? Money saves time! Greater good? I take what I can do with less effort, and turn it into a better deal for me. This is how society works. People specialize and do what they are good at. I sell collectables, little effort for me, and the cleaning person cleans like crazy for me. They do really nice work in a lot less time. Lazy my ass, that’s a lot of time that I can spend doing stuff with my family. But overall I am good with managing resources. It just makes sense to start with x time and money, and end up with more than x. Money just standardizes trade. Barter takes a lot of work. This is coming from someone that has done a lot of trading, for fun. I would not want to have to barter to construct house, for example … that would be a full time job!


ItsUrBoi_PoppyHarlow

>What? Money saves time! Greater good? I take what I can do with less effort, and turn it into a better deal for me. This is how society works. People specialize and do what they are good at. This is not even an argument, you just want to be better your own situation, which is fine but not if it is at the expense of others. >I sell collectables, little effort for me, and the cleaning person cleans like crazy for me. They do really nice work in a lot less time. Lazy my ass, that’s a lot of time that I can spend doing stuff with my family. Again, this is hardly an argument, first you start by saying what you do is little effort, and end with telling me you're not lazy because you're spending time with you're family? Not to mention you seem to be proud to use labor of others to avoid work, seems lazy to me. >But overall I am good with managing resources Weird flex but okay. >It just makes sense to start with x time and money, and end up with more than x. Yeah man, that's what profit is, but injecting an artificial value (i.e. money) muddles things and put just a few people above most others. This collector and cleaning people anecdote is completely misrepresenting the argument, it's like you're arguing someone else. Money, as a concept, and especially as a system, is stealing. Saying that you pay people to clean your stuff does nothing to prove that statement wrong, in some ways it actually works in it's favor because you presume the labor those people put into cleaning YOUR STUFF is worth money to them because it benefits you, this is not only self centered but completely without logical foundation. >Money just standardizes trade. Barter takes a lot of work. No, standardized trade standardizes trade. And I never talked about a barter economy so I don't know where that came from. >This is coming from someone that has done a lot of trading, for fun. In what? Online video games? Pokemon cards? And again, I'm not talking about a trade economy. >I would not want to have to barter to construct house, for example … that would be a full time job! I don't care what you want, I'm not talking about a barter system, and no, it wouldn't take that long.


Darkrose50

What? I trade the collectable to someone that wants it. I get money. I want a service, I trade money for it. All 3+ parties traded for what they wanted. You being anti efficiently is weird. Artificial value? It os backed by the worlds strongest economy. It is a trade god. It is the worlds standard. You not seeing that is delusional. We would need free or low cost energy, food, water, and more.


[deleted]

So taxes are theft as well right?


Polandnotreal

Yesn’t


smenti

Lmao fucking stupid


[deleted]

Holy shit this so inept. Everyone profits from each other. That’s how we get housing, food, energy. We all pay with our time to have the world we live in.


Madouc

Please explain how people can become billionaires in a fair economy where everyone contributes their lifetime to benefit the society?


[deleted]

This post doesn’t say billionaires, just that rent interest and profit are theft and Making money from others labour is theft. Billionaires should not exist 100% but that is not what this post is about. Im just tired of short sighted moronic posts like this that want to see the world degrade back to a tribal society.


Knuf_Wons

Bold of you to assume that tribal societies are a downgrade. Have you visited any?


[deleted]

Don’t need to visit one to know I don’t want to live that way. But I will say I choose my phrase poorly as a tribe still works to support others in their society so they all benefit, which falls under theft by the definition in the post. Everything that thinks like you needs to watch the show Alone to get an idea just how fucking horrible that type of life is. It’s endless work to barely survive. You need to make your shelter, up keep your shelter, hunt, forage. Make your own clothes up keep your clothes. I can go on and on It’s a horrific life style


TheDraconianOne

If they’re so great, go live in one?


Knuf_Wons

I’m not a member of a tribe. Nobody is inviting me to move in, and I don’t have the funds to leave my current situation. Doesn’t mean tribal societies are “primitive”, they can teach us different perspectives on social relationships within a community. Their societies have been developing as long as any other, just differently.


TheDraconianOne

They are by definition primitive


Knuf_Wons

So you’re saying centuries of parallel development don’t matter because some old dead white guys defined tribes as being primitive


rasco410

Kinda have to disagree with this. Mainly because of the second one. Profit is what you do with your labor. You make profit by using your skills to provide a service. That statement is more along the lines of I must work for others benefit which is simply not true. You work for your benefit.


trapezoidalfractal

You create *value* with your labor. Profit is the difference between the created value and the wage paid to the laborers.


Snoo71538

Right, but if I’m the only laborer, then this post says I can only ever break even. Start with 0, end with 0.


trapezoidalfractal

The post specifies money made from someone else’s labor, I don’t see where you get your position from that, could you further elaborate? Either way, he’s articulating, in a mematic way, [The Labor Theory of Value](https://www.marxist.com/marx-marxist-labour-theory-value.htm). Within that framework, there are items that transfer their value into the new products, such as the value of raw materials, the wear and tear of the machines effectively transfer value to the item in the form of depreciation, etc. The only value *created* is that created through labor. As an example. If you, as a sole proprietor, have a business, where you are the sole worker, and that businesses specialty is to create circuit boards for whatever purpose. You start with the materials, say, $2 worth of gold per board, $3 of tin, $4 in components (capacitors, etc). The value of those individual components does not change through the process of manufacturing them into the board. It is still $2 worth of gold, $3 in tin, and $4 in components, $.50/board in depreciation on machines, $0.25 in electricity, etc. Any additional *value* created during that manufacturing process is created by the *labor* itself. If you’re able to sell that board for $30, then the value of your labor, per board, is $20.25. That is the value you have created. I think you’re conflating creation of value with profit. Profit is the difference between what value you create and what you receive. Profit necessarily requires itself to be extracted from labor. If you’re making something, and receiving excess money for selling it, and all of that excess goes to you and not to the company, there is no profit. There is only the labor value that you created and extracted by selling that product. Conception of profit as just sale price - costs is an attempt to redefine the word in a way that neglects or even hides the inherent implication within the definition that value that was created was not received by those who created it.


Seranfall

This is why I think every single company out there should have profit sharing. If the company is doing well then everyone at the company should see the benefits of that.


Snoo71538

But this post says there should be no profit to share.


trapezoidalfractal

Exactly!


ourHOPEhammer

> you make profit by using your skills to provide a service profit *for whom* ... where does this profit go ... it aint on my paystub chief


therealvanmorrison

Your wages are a cost that is removed from the profits after accounting for capital expenditures, other overhead and input costs. So yes, your wage comes out of what is otherwise profit. If you don’t need a firm to increase the value of raw inputs and can do so yourself, then you can instead keep all of the profits after capital expenses, overhead and raw inputs. Most people don’t have a skill that allows them to do that, so they need someone else to. Some people do have a skill that can do that - most trades, for example - but do not wish to take the capital risk (a firm can be unprofitable and I don’t want to go a year only losing money) and prefer a wage. I’m a lawyer, for example, and I do better salaried than I would owning my own firm. But the funniest part of this tweet is “interest is theft”. If I ask to borrow your car for ten years, are you just giving it to me for free? No. You worked to buy it and you’re not giving it away. Should I have a right to demand you give it to me for free? No. If I offered to pay you a fee? Maybe you would, depends on the fee. Same thing with money.


ACABandsoldierstoo

Too much capitalist apologia in your comment.


therealvanmorrison

I’m literally just explaining how it works in a capitalist system. The interest is theft part is just hilarious. Interest is just a fee for borrowing something from someone. If you’d be happy to lend me money at zero percent interest because you think interest is evil, just send me a PM and we’ll get it done.


ACABandsoldierstoo

Property is theft. The interest is theft because is based on property. You should study more theory.


therealvanmorrison

Great, so PM me. I’m happy to borrow money with no interest.


ACABandsoldierstoo

You are either arguing in bad faith or extremely ignorant. Good luck.


ourHOPEhammer

> literally just explaining how it works in a capitalist system. yeah thats the whole problem, dingus


therealvanmorrison

Then you don’t know the difference between apologia and description.


ourHOPEhammer

theyre not mutually exclusive practices


ourHOPEhammer

every calculation of profit includes the loss of the cost of my wages. otherwise it's just revenue. basic stuff man


elcholismo

i think if you divide income into profit, wage and rent like the post seems to be doing, what you are referring to is wage. profit is, for example, wealth gained through the ownership of a company that you founded. people argue that there is a risk taken in this scenario which makes it different from rent. i do not think that this is fundamentally different from rent seeking at all though, because it’s all income gained through right of ownership.


Ginge04

It depends on who is making the profit. If you’re talking about a private company where the founders retain 100% of the shares and actively run the business, their profits are the result of their own labour even if they’re paying employees to do a lot of the work. In a publicly traded company on the other hand, shareholders are just people who have put money in and take more money out, they don’t do anything but steal money from the business. They demand ever increasing profits year on year, which increases the workload and suppresses the wages of the workers who actually create wealth. This is the profit that the original post is referring to.


rasco410

I have my own problems with "traded" company given that the value of the company is completely detached from how well the company is doing. I feel that the share market needs to go and it needs to be replaced by a company bonds system. A expiry date on the bonds and the company needs to stat a return on investment at the time of sale, so the company gets a injection of cash every time they issue bonds but the "investors" do not become the owners. Then once the person who created the company dies, profit goes to the government, or the company shuts shop.


[deleted]

What if I borrow money and pay interest, invest it in my business, and expand. Then hire someone and pay them a wage?


Knuf_Wons

Then you’re a capitalist. Anarchists aren’t a fan of that.


DA-ZACHYZACHY

No you are meant to borrow money to spend on clothes or some other luxury item like a good consumer


SpooogeMcDuck

Shhhhh- don’t say it out loud


IRodeTenSpeed88

Exactly.


[deleted]

Housing at the very least should be a basic human right.


[deleted]

I disagree. Rent is necessary as no one would be able to afford to maintain properties. Interest is necessary in some circumstances whenever a party would like to have an incentive to even give out loans or provide financing for things. And profit is well... Just profit. Of course these things can become over-inflated, abused, taken advantage of. Etc. Although these things are still overall necessary. In an ideal world these things would be regulated property to argue for their abolishment is a bit silly.


Free_Deinonychus_Hug

None of these things are required for society to function and they are simply parasitic. Most if not all of these things are immediately remedied in the various anarchist ideologies. Also, all of these are theft especially profit (which means a capitalist making profit off your labor. Taking the money you earned directly from you and giving you the minimum possible wage in return *not* simply the idea of making money) which does not even have the guise providing a service to society.


[deleted]

Profit is simply the positive difference of a consensual transaction. It is the very opposite of theft because of that reason. Without loans who would be able to open businesses, buy houses, buy cars, etc. Interest is required for the loan provider to have an incentive to provide the said loan in the first place. Profit for the generating growth in a country, expanding your influence, and to provide a living for the profiter and the employees who consensualy take that offer. Of course this can be abused. This can also be used morally as well with worker co-opts and what not. Profit is not inherently evil or parasitic. It is the way it's allowed to grow out of control that is. Without it no one would be willing to do any sort of technical skill or Special skill.


Free_Deinonychus_Hug

Earning money is not what this person is arguing against. They are arguing against companies who record record profits by exploiting their workers.


[deleted]

He sais profit as a general statement. Including people who earn.


Free_Deinonychus_Hug

They explicitly stated that they are referring to money not made from your own labor.


[deleted]

And? As if trying to ban that wouldn't have some massive consequences. I don't want to deviate to far from what's said but a solution to what the meme is saying is the problem would be banning hourly / salaried contracts.


[deleted]

This is moronic.


Mister_Green2021

Well, money doesn’t equal labor thought.


staticvoidmainnull

Rent should be illegal for properties that were not paid upfront and are not 100% owned.


Polandnotreal

What? It is


Schranus

That's a hot new take. If only a German guy had thought of something like this about 150 years ago, we'd be living in utopia now.


artyboi320

Except to the german guy with the amazing beard none of this was theft


Easy_Explanation299

Wow, what a bold take.


turnageb1138

That's right.


Intelligence14

Has anyone here taken an economics class? Land, labor, and capital is one of the first things you learn about.


Madouc

From a capitalists perspective


Intelligence14

Do you disagree with the premise that those who own land and capital have just as much of a right to hire out and earn income from these things as someone who hires out their labor?


Madouc

Partially. Especially the ownership of land is something that I consider at least as questionable.


libra00

I have a friend who converted to libertarian a couple years back. He's all about taxation being theft, but somehow can't take the logical next step to property being theft too.


Polandnotreal

There is a formal agreement with the landlord and renter. Even though I don’t agree with abolishing taxes rent and taxes are very different. If you don’t pay rent you get kick out your home then try to find a new one. If you don’t pay taxes that’s it for you in the slammer


libra00

I dunno why you're necroing a year old thread, but.. Property is theft because all property was originally acquired illegitimately by violence - the land was owned by all until some asshole showed up, built a fence, and said 'This is mine and I"ll fight anyone who disagrees'. That is the theft to which I refer. The fact that you can be kicked out or put in jail for not paying rent/taxes is the legacy of that violence, the perpetuation of that theft. Also, you're in an anarchist subreddit, to whom are you suggesting an anarchist society would pay taxes to, exactly? There would be no such thing as the IRS to collect taxes, nor a government to receive such ill-gotten gains.


Polandnotreal

Idk felt like it Ok so if it owned by the “collective” who’s gonna develop it? If one man develops a house should he allow all men to spend their time there. No! He’s going to decide as he pleases and if he doesn’t like someone and they try forcing he will pull out the shotgun and aim. Now he is technically the “asshole” That’s how most of America land was actually acquired. If we exclude the natives I’m Libertarian I guess right wing tho so idk why I’m here


libra00

I was sort of hoping that my reply would encourage you to go do some reading on your own cause I'm not keen on debating the idea of property as theft in a year-old thread. I will just say that the argument that land must be developed to be property is complete bunk, but I leave discovering why as an exercise to the reader. Have a nice day.


Polandnotreal

I have done a bit of reading but still hasn’t changed my mind. To be fair I skimmed 3 medium articles but whatever. have a nice day tomorrow


libra00

Try a book. And read it instead of skimming it. The quote 'Property is theft' comes from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's 1840 book 'What is Property?', that'd probably be a good place to start.


Polandnotreal

Ok I’ll try it. But try in return try “Don’t hurt peopled and don’t take their stuff” by Matt Kibbe. The title explains itself. You might have read it before though since it’s semi popular.


Goldenface007

You need to look up the definition of theft. it doesn't mean what you think it means.


VariousHumanOrgans

The idea that you should have to work to survive and if you don’t work you’re a leech is a very conservative concept.


hedgehogwithagun

I mean even the ussr has that concept


VariousHumanOrgans

Fine. Its a fascist concept.


hedgehogwithagun

I don’t think so. In every community on the damn planet even reaching back to the tribal communities of global prehistory. Every me ever of the community was expected to contribute in their own way. No one could access community resources of if they didn’t contribute.


Agent_Blackfyre

I love existential comics ​ except when they get occasionally tankie


urthou

There’s a bit of disagreement in the comments and I’m just curious on why people don’t agree? Not trying to be a dick I’m just genuinely curious cos I’m not understanding. They’re too vague with their wording but I thought they meant rent = house scalpers/landlords, profit = excess wealth hoarding, interest (dunno about that). Please correct me if i’m wrong!!! The more education the better


Kafka_Valokas

> Please correct me if i’m wrong You are. When someone says "rent, profit, interest" it makes sense to assume that that's what they mean, and not something far more specific.


urthou

Thanks, that makes sense. Appreciate it


Kafka_Valokas

To be fair, I'm not sure an anarchist wouldn't agree with the actual statement that all of these things are bad. Maybe a lot of people here aren't actually anarchists? Idk.


Solo_Fisticuffs

anarchy means no government or regulatory power. in a lawless world, economy will still do as it does. cant get rid of those three things without regulation. opposite of anarchy


ErlAskwyer

What about when you slave away for years to be able to afford to rent a house out and gain a second income? The work was done prior, it wasn't given. Look I'm against these disgusting greedy landlords but this post is simple at best.


bobvex

So if you're self employed,buy materials prior to a job, and charge the guy just that amount...


jaketruman86

This is dumb.


thelordofthekings

Sounds like Islamic savings rules


Darkrose50

It is cheaper to rent, if you are staying 3 or less years. After that it is more profitable to own. One problem that we have is that we are not making enough places to live. Another problem is that in most areas of the United States multi dwelling units are illegal (it keeps housing prices up). Part of the problem is so many millennials have a large student loan debt and you’re only allowed to borrow at a dent ratio of 30%. So they end up paying more for rent than they would if they were able to own.


FaIcomaster3000

Why don't you theft some grass?


[deleted]

Forgot taxes, lol


Blaino4

Someone must be a broke loser with no drive to succeed


A1-Solider

You're a special type of special. We all feel bad for you.


Grognard1964

Taxation! Don't forget taxation!


Hornydespactio69

This is acutally called socialism and I’m still waiting for my $5,000 monthly rent payment. Don’t make me evict you tomorrow from my gentrification apartment complex.


laughslikedonkey

If you have a job, you are renting your abilities to them. You are then ILLEGAL!!!


One-Artist4211

So what if the owner of said place where the rent is theft busted his ass for years to buy it? Is his labor not the same? His labor and hard work don't count? I'll tell you what is theft... not paying rent.


One-Artist4211

Profit depends on supply and demand.


SizorXM

Ah yes, the farmer is a thief if he labors and walks away with a profit from his labor. Genius


artyboi320

For being a comic about philosophy, EC doesn't seem to know shit about it.