how-to block ads
|
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to fiberguy
Re: That's her defence?
A product's worth is determined by demand's willingness to pay.
If demand is no longer willing to pay, the product is worthless.
Demand is no longer willing to pay more than zero dollars and zero cents for this product.
If artists keep making their work, then they are simply being bad capitalists.
Innovation has lowered the cost of production (in this case, distribution) to zero dollars and zero cents, and now, certain "corporations," in the non-traditional sense, are offering a product for cost-of-production. Capitalism is supposed to drive the price of products down as much as possible in response to innovations that lower cost-of-production.
How liberal America of you.
Sorry, Fiberguy, but YOU are the liberal on this issue! You want to limit the free market and put a hold on innovation in order to continue a fossilized, outdated industry that has been deemed NOT PROFITABLE by natural innovation in a free market. You are in bed with Marx on this issue. Marx would've said "but what about Labor Time Value? Shouldn't these artists be paid for the time they put into the studio and what about the thought that went into their art?" So you agree with Marx on this matter, Fiberguy?
it's a product
EEEEH! Wrong. Let's tell him what he won!
Well Fiberguy, if art is a product explain this ...
Products are things that can make a profit.
If a product ceases making a profit, it will cease to be made.
Inherently, a product is something that exists to make a product.
Art will continue to be made regardless of if it makes a profit.
PROOF: I personally would continue to write and record music even if their was no profit to be made from doing so and it only took a loss.
THEREFORE, reducto de absurdity, art is NOT a product. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Broadbander, I won't quote your entire post so I will bullet point your comments.
1) Capitalism is not supposes to "drive the price of products down as much as possible".. where did you learn that? It's called supply and demand. Prices go up and down freely as the market demands.
2) You say *I* am the liberal on this issue? My answer? HAHAHAHAH - I had to laugh. Liberals generally like to dictate how much money people will have and or give up. I am more conservative in this area and I believe that business is free to make money within the guidlines of the law. I was HARDLY liberal in my post..
You are trying to tell an artist what their product is worth. It's not your nor my place to do so. It's THEIR desire to price at where they think they can sell. HOWEVER, just because something is "worthless" as you claim, which it's not, still doesn't mean that you can just "take" something. Something of no value doesn't = free. It just means that someone owns something of no value, period. I actually stated that it's not our place to determine value based on the amount of time someone put into something, rather, it's up to the owner to figure out where the market will support a price point. Re-read my post again.
3)Put your buzzer back in your pants bud. I am not wrong here, again, YOU are. Art IS a product if it's for sale or someone has the desire to sell it. You think that something is only a product that sits on a shelf in a Wal-Mart? Or gas from a pump? I got news for you, I also sell my advice to people that need help with technology and also real estate. Products, services,... they can be sold. I also make digital artwork as well. So what? It's still mine to do as I please, not yours!
Your so-called "proof" is that YOU would continue to write or record music even if there was no profit to be made. SO WHAT! That's YOUR CHOICE! Some people do so and do so frequently! Others do not! Others make a living from their music. Who are you to decide what is worth something, when it is a free for all, and who should take a loss.
Your post is SOOOO far off the mark it's not even funny. Products ARE things that make profit, not 100% true, but for this I will give it to you for the lack of having to explain this further to you, BUT, just because the product don't make money any more doesn't mean the owner gives up the rights to it's posession or control either.
By the way, "a product is something that exists to make a product?!" Wow! What grade are you in? | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
3 edits | prove art is a product by disproving my argument ...
You are trying to tell an artist what their product is worth. It's not your nor my place to do so.
I'm the consumer. It is my place.
Labor does not determine price. That's Marxian. What people are willing to pay does.
In this case, people are not willing to pay anything.
Products, services,... they can be sold.
So what? It PROVES it ... ITS CALLED LOGIC. try it out, maybe someone will agree with you.
If something is a product, it is a product. Something that is a product exists to make a profit.
Do you think products don't exist to make a profit?
Art is not made exclusively to make a profit. Since I would still make art even if it was at a loss, it proves my point that art will still be made without profits.
As for my grade, I'm 31. I'll take you down philosophy baby steps for beginners like you.
PREMISE 1: Products are things that exist to make profit.
PREMISE 2: If a profit ceases to exist a product will cease to be made.
PREMISE 3: If profit ceased to existed, art would continue to be made, I know this because I would do it. I just need one example for a logical proof, genius.
Conclusion: Since art will continue to be made even if it does not profit, and since products are things that are made for profit and cease to be made if they do make profit, then art is not a product.
now disprove that with logic and we can take it another step.
If people stopped paying for consultants would there still be consultants? No.
But if people stopped paying for artists, there would still be artists and thusly, art is not a product.
And as for liberalism ... you are spouting a Marxist and Ricardian notion, labor time value. You are saying persons should be compensated for their work at a price determined by them. Now, please think of the work force and tell me if you still believe in these across all markets. Should the cook at McDonald determine the price of your particular Big Mac based on how much he wants to make AFTER company profits? You are accidentally treading on socialist waters.
Furthermore, you did not engage this ...
If artists keep making their work, then they are simply being bad capitalists.
Innovation has lowered the cost of production (in this case, distribution) to zero dollars and zero cents, and now, certain "corporations," in the non-traditional sense, are offering a product for cost-of-production.
AND I repeat ... Capitalism is supposed to drive the price of products down as much as possible in response to innovations that lower cost-of-production.
This is the case. In a perfectly competitive market (the goal of capitalism as a theory) the price for all products is the cost plus .0000000 (infinity) 1. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | Anyone else care to take care of the light work here? I am not even going to bother with him anymore. I can't fight something that makes no sense without hurting my wrists and fingers. I don't know what world he lives in, but it's not earth.
I will say one thing: Capitalism = supply vs demand, 'nough said. | |
|
