To the events in Cyprus. April abstract

In connection with the events in Cyprus, the people revived and got excited. But I don’t understand what’s the matter. You are playing according to your capitalist rules, and don’t be surprised if other similar methods are followed. Have you heard a song?
Here's how it happens,
How it happens:
Someone loses,
Someone finds.
Capitalism is a two-way process: you are not averse to warming your hands on your clients, and they are on your own, alone in the loser. Well, why be surprised, one asks? Want to be honest, build an economy in which everyone is rewarded according to work. Apparently, there is no other economic justice, no matter how altered the bass, the apologists for profitability squeak under the door: “Open, kid kids! Your mother has come, milk has brought. "
Below is a short economic educational program on the labor theory of value (in the author's interpretation). If you are not one of these, in gray skin and with a capitalist bite, come in - you might be interested in a fair economy.
And after reading, you can take part in the survey. Regarding Cyprus, if this is so relevant for you.

Labor Cost Theory

Thesis 1. Labor is the engine of the economy.

Not news, frankly.
I will only specify what labor is from the point of view of the labor theory of value.
Our universe is designed so that some things (tools) affect others (objects), as a result of which the latter change their properties. Let's say a hammer hits a nail, causing the nail to be driven into the board. A cause gives rise to an effect that becomes the cause of another effect, etc. Labor in these endless chains of cause and effect is the effects exerted by man on inanimate objects.

Thesis 2. Labor ends with consumption.

What characteristics must human efforts have to become work?
First of all, they must end with consumption. If you wave your arms aimlessly, this does not mean that you are working. But if you wave your arms, as a result of which the firewood turns out to be chopped, and then the firewood is used to light a fire, on which food is prepared, which is consumed, this is undoubtedly labor.
It follows from the rule: human efforts become labor not at the moment of their commission, but much later, when consuming products.

Thesis 3. Consumption can only be voluntary.

Well it is clear.
If the neighbor behind the wall yells on the guitar, this does not mean at all that you should cough him up for musical talent. There is no labor effort, since your consumption is not voluntary - it is forced.

Thesis 4. Labor assumes the ultimate goal.

Another labor criterion.
Causal chains are endless. It may happen that your action, which is meaningless at first, will turn out to be productive after some time. For example, a passerby will throw an apple core on the side of the road, and an apple tree will grow out of the core. This is not labor, of course.
Labor involves achieving a predetermined goal. You need to tell yourself: “I want to plant an apple tree!” and grow an apple tree. Actions should be not only successful, but also conscious - then your efforts will turn into work.

Thesis 5. Labor is measured by time.

No one ever doubted this.
True, most of the adherents of the labor theory of value used the coefficients of labor participation, but this only devalued their own achievements. No, gentlemen, adepts, no productivity, qualifications, or other subjective factors can be taken into account: working time is measured bluntly by a chronometer.
“But how so ?! - perhaps they will cry out to me in response. “The hard worker produces 10 parts per shift, and the idler-changer 5 parts, but they will receive the same compensation!”
“Quite right, the same,” I answer reasonably. “With just one clarification.” Change parts will be twice as expensive, so they risk not finding a consumer. In this case, the successor will not receive compensation for his work. ”

Thesis 6. The starting point of labor is man.

The whole universe is permeated with cause-and-effect chains: tools affect objects, which in turn are tools that affect other objects, etc. You can measure the mutual effects of things on each other indefinitely, but once you need to stop.
We need to stop on a person, because each of us is both a producer and a consumer. These durations are subject to measurement:

• first, the person acts on the subject;
• after some time, the given item is consumed or, as an option, acts as a tool on another item;
• and so on up to personal - that is, human - consumption.

Thesis 7. Compensation for a product is divided between co-producers in proportion to their labor contributions.

Labor products can be manufactured by many manufacturers. Therefore, compensation for labor should be shared among all manufacturers involved in the process. How is it divided? As said: in proportion to the time worked by them.

Thesis 8. Objects of labor are reimbursed for the duration of manufacture, tools - for the duration of use.

Here lies a very cunning hack.
Adherents of the labor theory of value believed that all products should be reimbursed for the duration of manufacture. With objects - there is no objection, but why should the guns be compensated for the duration of use ?!
Theoretical considerations are complex, so a practical example. Two hunters hunt together and accordingly divide the prey equally. One of the hunters makes an artificial man in his place and sends him to hunt in his place. How to divide the prey now that the artificial hunter is doing everything that a living person did ... who, I recall, receives compensation for the duration of his work. Obviously, an artificial hunter should receive as much as his creator, that is ... the duration of the hunt.
The artificial hunter in the example is any weapon. The manufacturer “sends” the tool they made to work in their place and receives reimbursement as if he himself were in the place of the tool. That gives him the opportunity to "save" working time. For example, if the creator was engaged in the manufacture of his artificial man within 4 working days, and that can be used within a week, after which the mechanism breaks down irrevocably, then the savings are 3 working days. But of course, if an artificial hunter breaks down a day after its manufacture, instead of a profit, it will result in continuous losses.

Thesis 9. In addition to the physical, there is intellectual labor.

Not by bread alone - as the smart book says so.
Intellectual labor certainly exists, otherwise where would the Appassionate, the Naked Mach and the Brothers Karamazov come from? Obviously, intellectual work must be compensated for by the duration of use: by how much time the viewer enjoys the work of art.

Thesis 10. Consumption reimburses, and labor is reimbursed according to uniform rules.

Man is both a producer and a consumer. And indeed, he is only a unit in the general series of things that enter into causal relations with each other.
I mean that labor and consumption should be calculated according to uniform rules. If the items are reimbursed in favor of the manufacturer according to the duration of manufacture, and the tools - according to the duration of use, then this is exactly how much the consumer compensates. It turns out: when a person consumes objects (food), he pays for the duration of food production, and when he consumes tools (clothes, housing, appliances, etc.), he pays for the duration of their use.
The rule leads to many interesting mathematical consequences, but this topic is not for a short post.

Thesis 11. Compensation is made at the time of consumption.

The consequence of the second thesis.
If labor can be recognized only at the time of consumption of the product, then compensation cannot be received by the manufacturer earlier than the product manufactured by him is consumed. Compensation is due for labor, and not for aimless hand-waving, which is still unknown whether it will or will not become labor.
The manufactured product must be transferred to the potential consumer and only later, when the product is really consumed, hope for a refund. Entertaining trade is supposed in a fair economy, don't you find?

Thesis 12. Exchange should be carried out on an equivalent basis. In this regard, money circulation is organized.

Due to the existence of specialization, people are forced to exchange products.
If the exchange takes place on an equivalent basis, then no profit is possible in principle. It has long been known that profit is the greatest mystification of all time. But without money, which is a measured in the duration of labor balance between production and consumption of each individual, can not do.
Of course, the money of a fair economy has little in common with modern money circulation:

• according to the labor theory of value, money cannot be issued - simply put, printed - by anyone, but arise spontaneously during the act of consumption, as a positive value for the producer and negative for the consumer;
• since negative monetary values ​​are possible, it is obvious that some of the people will have a negative monetary balance.

From which the conclusion follows: the sum of positive and negative accounts is zero, that is, it balances.

Thesis 13. Balance of money regulates relations between producers and consumers.

“Negative amount of money? But will such people get food in stores? ” - the indignant ignorant reader will cry out at this place.
And why not, actually?
The majority will receive, only the compensation will not be received by the manufacturers immediately, but as the refunds are received in the accounts of people with a negative balance. When deciding whether to transfer or not transfer its product to a potential potential consumer, the manufacturer will have to hesitate between choosing:

• transfer the product, but wait a while for a refund;
• expect a more “prosperous” consumer.

Those people whose cash balance is defiantly negative will receive a minimum of products or nothing at all. But they didn’t work, did they? This is obviously better than the situation when a person works like a bee, while dying of hunger.

Thesis 14. The cash balance changes only as a result of consumption.

Cash balance is far from a bank account.
At the bank you can send the amount available on the account wherever you want, and in a fair economy - why on earth? If only work is subject to compensation, then any, even the most voluntary transfer of money to someone’s benefit will put an end to economic justice.
No voluntary donations, in short. Consumed - reimbursed, produced - received reimbursement, and nothing else.

Thesis 15. Direct descendants inherit.

Everything would be fine, but man is mortal. With death, consumption ceases, and compensation is not necessary, because the time of production is separated from the time of compensation in time. In addition, it is necessary to wait for personal consumption: with the help of the tool another tool can be produced, with the help of which the third tool and so on ... and only after a long time will something be made for personal rather than production consumption. The manufacturer may not wait and die. What about his monetary balance, one asks?
Attributed to the descendants, of course.
Here a number of options arise with a positive or negative monetary balance, as well as with the absence of heirs. Some of the options require mathematical calculations, which I am not able to perform, and some seem to be alternative, which should not be, but in general the direction of the search for objections does not cause objections.

Thesis 16. The necessary calculations are performed outside the economy.

If you managed to get scared that I would take and bring the modern economy into line with the labor theory of value, you hurried: it's too early. As they say, objective prerequisites are not ripe.
Firstly, a fair economy requires an appropriate registration and computing base, which is located ... outside of the named economy.
Look, two manufacturers are trying to exchange products - equivalent to exchange, as expected. And the products, which are very convenient, have the same manufacturing time - for each 3 hours of working time are spent, for example. However, the second manufacturer objects to the first:
“No, that won't do. You quickly count, and counted your 3 hours in 1 minute. But I think slowly, so I counted my 3 hours in 10 minutes. Therefore, my product is 9 minutes more expensive than yours. Let's exchange in this proportion, my friend. "
What can I say to that ... hmm hmm ... buddy. If only to quote the current thesis: the necessary calculations are carried out outside the economy.
How is this possible? But no way. I immediately warned: the reader has absolutely nothing to worry about - a fair economy, oh, how close!

Thesis 17. Coercion is beyond the scope of economics.

Secondly, the rules of a fair economy do not impose any fines for failure to comply with their rules: fines, as well as the payment of compensation to police officers who will monitor the observance of the economic order, are absolutely impossible.
This means that a fair economy is achievable either with universal voluntaryism or with equally universal coercion, and coercion - on the grounds that it is non-economic in nature - must be moved beyond the framework of the economy. But non-economic coercion is unlikely, of course: history teaches that violence has exactly the opposite goal - to gain access to economic goods bypassing justice.
Therefore, citizens, calm down for God's sake. Do not want to receive according to your work, so stay with your thousand and one way to cheat your neighbor: oligarchs, Cypriot banks, financial scammers, surrender not given in the store and the principle “man to man wolf” - enjoy capitalist harmony! There, if you understand what kind of “there” I mean, they do not forcefully drive them.