Why socialism could not work even with virtuous men.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Holy shit! The theory of the Soviet Union no doubt! I can tell because you use words like "Command Economy". Shove your command economy up your arse.

Congradulations, you have one of the examples where labour theory doesn't apply. There are a few more - you could probably find them at Libertarian.com

A command economy is any economy run by the state. Unless you are talking guild socialism, which you are not, that is what communist theory calls for.

There is no proof that the labour theory applies to anything.

Uh oh guys! Cpaitalist Economists don't aprove! Best cancel the Fourth Internationale toot sweet!

You think ever modern economist is capitalist? Please. The only laissez-faire capitalist economists out there anymore are the Austrian school's.

Do you know why the price of a prescription pill is cheaper in Mexico? Because it costs less to produce, since labour is cheaper in Mexico! Or is it because there is too much offer of pills in Mexico or because there is less demand of pills? (this is what your theory would argue!). (another factor is the monopoly position of pharmaceutical companies, but let's leave that aside for the moment since that is a violation of the market). Let's take tin. Yes, if all of a sudden tin reserves around the world exhausted and they had to get it from deeper mines (thus implying more labour) then it is clear that the prices of tin would go up (it would cost more to produce). Why is steel from China cheaper that US steel? Is it because there is less demand in China? Is it because there is not enough offer in the US? NO, it is because it COSTS LESS to produce steel in China. Let's take the argument further, why is labour cheaper in Mexico or China? Is it because there is more workers around? No, it is because it costs less to produce labour in Mexico. The socially necessary amount of labour time required to keep a worker alive for a month in Mexico is less that the socially necessary amount of labour time needed to keep a worker alive in the US.

Don't make me laugh. Perscription drugs are cheaper in Mexico for several reasons. For one, we have an advantagous exchange rate. Furthermore, you are ignoring Mexico's drug regulation policy. The FDA raises the price of drugs in America (indirectly). They also don't have Medicare, etc. You are drawing conclusions without looking at the entire situation. The same applies with tin.

You are correct that the workers are paid less, and that, therefore, prices can be lower because production can be increased (oh look, an increase in supply!!!)*; however, that has absolutely nothing to do with the theory. For the theory merely addresses the time needed to produce a good, not how much it costs to produce it. If it took the same amount of time for a worker in the U.S. to produce a good as it did in Mexico, wouldn't the good cost the same? The theory you hold so highly maintains that it would, which is simply not the case.

Who feeds you such shit?

I could be asking you the same thing.

*Prices may also be lowered by the company even without an increase in production, but this is usually not the optimum. Generally, lower wages means more employment, and therefore a greater supply. This is especially true if the firm is trying to undercut competitors, essentially increase the demand for their product without changing the aggregate.