<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Havell @ Jun 5 2006, 06:43 PM) [snapback]234587[/snapback]</div>
Quote:
Money is not a kind of capital, capital is things like machines and tools. Things used to produce other things, be they more capital or consumer goods and services.
Money is a means of distributing resources, in itself, it is useless; a coin isn't worth anything beyond the base value of it's metal, but it can be used to purchase things that have value in other ways (ie, they are actually useful).[/b]
|
Money is also known as financial capital. To put it in a very modern perspective: how many processes can you name in which money isn't a factor of production? I'll bet it's a very slim few (if any).
From another angle: free-float currency (what we're talking about here; gold/silver standard is a separate issue) has value because other people back it (in the case of the US dollar -- the current international standard -- it's backed by the US government). Labor is actually quite the same: my labor is dependent on other forms of capital (such as my technical knowledge, physical condition, etc). Labor has a defined value with respect to production in the exact same way that currency does, and that value is relative to the other factors.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Havell @ Jun 5 2006, 06:43 PM) [snapback]234587[/snapback]</div>
Quote:
And Midget does have a point about the relationship between labour and capital. Different levels of capital are possible but labour is necessary in all cases. And labour was around long before even the most primitive of capital (eg flint tools).
Remember that labour is necessary for the production and operation of capital, not the other way around. Any economy is based upon labour, as such, to shift the focus onto capital is a mistake.[/b]
|
I call BS. Assuming that the process in question is completely independent of capital, it's still bound by land (which includes natural resources). Labor without the other factors accomplishes nothing. The only possible exception to this rule which I'd find even plausable are the arts, and even then it's only true of oral-tradition and music (which arguably are predicated upon the availability of air, which is a natural resource). Try basing an economy on
that (it might work -- that is, until you starve).
Labor may possibly predate capital (depending on how you define capital; I certainly don't subscribe to any such definitions myself), but it certainly doesn't predate land. Show me an autonomous economy based solely around labor and I'll show you an economy which will fail nearly immediately.