Oddbean

Ok, I see that as a necessary and important part of the economy. Example: You have a company and have more work to do than you can do by yourself, so you want to offer a productive job for someone with the needed skills. Let say there's a $100 job. You as an emloyer need to calculate the correct pay for the employee so that your company can get the job well done + get some profits. You would not pay that $100 directly to the employee, right? You as a ceo of your company take a multiple risks running the company and it's not charity so your goal is to make some profit and with that profit you plan to expand and employ even more people, which is very good for the economy, right?

Right, this is a very good approach, but... The fact remains that even if you don't want to steal the worker, you still steal the worker because you keep the surplus for yourself. It is the system that works this way. Moreover there is a risk on the side of the worker too, a risk that quite well be bigger than any businesses owner or ceo will take, especially if the worker does a dangerous job.

You don't keep that surplus for youself, it's for the company profit and company profits have 3 very important functions in economy (we can talk about them also). About the risks. If the company fails you get bankrupt, but the worker is not, they got paid as was negotiated all the way. You as an employer need to also do work to find a suitable worker, a work that doesn't pay unless you find a worker that is willing to work for you and will succeed at the job. If the job is dangerous, you would need to pay higher wage and do more work to find a worker with suitable skills and willingness to work for you. The worker can always start a business and work for themselves, but there's definitely many reasons why many workers decided to work for someome else. You have interesting way to look at this, I almost thought the same before I started studying austrian economic theory. Do you believe that every company should be non-profit?

Yes, that's why i said that this is a very good approach, and healthy approach as much as it takes, i add now. Still your company though, not the workers company, aka your benefit. About the risks, a worker can even lose his life due to the job. Is there a bigger risk? Risk, in general, is not an excuse for stealing the workers by keeping the surplus. I am telling this, because this is why risk is involved in such conversations, it was invented as an excuse during the cold war as an effort to justify the theft. No, it is not possible in many cases and for many reasons, for a worker to start it's own business, but yes , on the other hand there are many cases that workers can make their own business or cooperate with others, but they don't do it usually for the exact same reasons you already mentioned. So, it depends on the case, you can be well right with your criticism on this, i certainly can agree too, but not a general rule. Far from that.

But it is not stealing we agree with the conditions. You arrange the $100 job, I agree to work and get paid $95, you get $5 profits. But one needs to understand that this $5 is not free to you, you worked for it, you had to negotiate with the customer and with the about the job and pay. Often those negotiation are hard and sometimes the worker do bad job and it's your job as an employer to fix all.

That theory is clearly wrong. Stealing would be if we agreed $95 pay and you pay only $90. Then you would steal $5. Another example: If you sell me 10 apples for the prize of $10. Then I notice that another store sells 10 apples for $8. Does it mean that you've now stolen $2 from me? 🤔

Agreement between the tiger and the deer about the tiger's meal, is pure cheating. Anyway look... About this particular subject, for obvious reasons, there was a huge effort during the cold war, to find an excuse to justify the stealing. Because it was recognised as stealing to the capitalist world also and as i said and as it is famously well known, this theorem comes with a proof. So, relatively close to the cold war, they ended up with the excuse we have already discussed. The risk of the business owner. That is the best they could come up with and as we saw, this excuse is more than weak. That is what they also teached, otherwise no academic career... Recently, a few years ago, i heard something about trying to justify the stealing through the theory of marginal utility, if you are aware. Of course this failed too and never heard that again since then. The only thing that can really dispute the surplus value theorem is technology, as i have already said, because it might change the situation, depending on the case, making the human work less important. Anyway, i don't say that you don't know economics, you are probably better than me on many things, why not, but this is not your thing. I guess the next subject i would like to discuss with you, if you are in the mood, would come also as a surprise. By the way, i am not a marxist or something like this...

i do not think it is stealing or cheating. But If we say, yes its stealing and so we wont do it, then i wont start the business in the first place. There is no incentive to do so. If an agreement was between two deer, would that be ok? Is this really about difference in power?

Yes as i said, even if you don't want to steal, the system works this way. Guys all the top economists of the west, tried to debunk the theorem for decades for a reason. There is literally a ton of books and other critics on the subject. All of them failed so far. Half of the planet tried in the past to switch to socialism because of this. Have a look...

I see. The best is to look the theorem itself and the proof that accompanies it. In a nutshell, there is a surplus value created by the production procedure, and that whole surplus value ends up only in the pocket of the business owner. I hope that i am not confusing you, i am not really good on explaining things.

Agreement between the tiger and the deer is purely natural. Tiger can eat deer but eventually worms will eat the tiger. So what's the agreement between tiger and worms? Anybody can try to prove anything they wanted, but one can always use their own brains. We've $100 job. You do the easier part (negotiations and arrangements) and I do the harder part. So you get $5 and I get $95. I see no stealing in that arrangement, we both agreed with it. In my opinion, stealing is something that happens when somebody takes something someone else have earned, without their consent. I think printing money is stealing because it reduces the purchasing power of our wealth without our consent. How do you define stealing?

Ah, so it's the word stealing that confuses you. Ok, we could maybe say it blackmail or injust. Let's say injust. Please read the theorem and the proof and make your own definition and share it with us, i think that would be the best. I am curious if you'll see something different.