A question that any true socialist / capitalist should ask themselves.

I will keep it simple, short and sweet. My reasoning behind this question is very broad and in depth. But I want to hear ATS point of view, thoughts etc.

The overall equation and question is:

Does labour come before capital or does capital come before labour? Which is more important in the whole grand scale of economics.
Which is more valuable?

a reply to: strongfp

Interesting thought excercise, but I'm a bit confused on what you mean by "come before".

Did you mean as in priority, or in the sense of a timeline?

a reply to: strongfp

You exclude the answer of mutual dependency.

Which is more valuable, plants or animals?

Capital and labor are meaningless without the other.

a reply to: Mach2

Did you mean as in priority, or in the sense of a timeline?

Priority is always a 'must' in economics, when you equate capital and labour which is your go to for priority?

a reply to: strongfp

It's a bad question.

Technically labor is human capital.

Rephrase, perhaps?

a reply to: Lumenari

Capital is what humans exploit to gain the upper hand in life. The wheel for example is capital. An arrow head is capital gain for a hunter.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Lumenari

Capital is what humans exploit to gain the upper hand in life. The wheel for example is capital. An arrow head is capital gain for a hunter.

Capital is a lot of things in a business.

Debt capital, working capital, equity capital, physical capital, trading capital, human capital....

The wheel in your scenario (and the arrowhead) are considered physical capital.

Again, your question is bad.

Rephrase it perhaps?

a reply to: strongfp

Capital (Resources=The Earth) comes before labor.
Labor extracts the resources which are then traded
through a value system. (The earth existed here before we did).

No matter what form of Government, there are those
who want to perform the least amount of Labor and own the
most Capitol. It is a fact of Human Nature and Life.
There is no Utopia.

That fact is not being emphasized in Higher Education these days.
So it is what it is.
S&F

Depends on whether "Labor" sacrifices wages or "Management" sacrifices salary 😎

a reply to: Lumenari

capital has one meaning. Labour does as well.

Which is more valuable?

I think you are dancing around the subject I brought forward.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Lumenari

capital has one meaning. Labour does as well.

Which is more valuable?

I think you are dancing around the subject I brought forward.

Capital has several meanings in macroeconomics... labor is one included in human capital.

Perhaps economics is not your strong point?

~shrug~

a reply to: Wildmanimal

In a literal sense you are 100% correct, iron ore, gold, etc. capital has a much higher value compared to the labour put into extracting it.

When you start to add in the value or human labor or even intellectual labor to create machines to do such tasks, which would you value more?

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: strongfp

It's a bad question.

Technically labor is human capital.

Rephrase, perhaps?

Yes, that has been true historically. "money" is just a vehicle of storage.

That, however, is changing with the advent of the information age.

As information has become more valuable, the money/labor connection has become less direct.

a reply to: Lumenari

Human capital is labour... which brings us back to my original question.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Wildmanimal

In a literal sense you are 100% correct, iron ore, gold, etc. capital has a much higher value compared to the labour put into extracting it.

When you start to add in the value or human labor or even intellectual labor to create machines to do such tasks, which would you value more?

So you are just trying to say that physical capital is the only capital and labor is human capital.

How 1800's of you.

No... in reality a businessperson worth their salt in 2019 juggles 6 different types (at least) of capital.

Putting one before the other would depend entirely on the business.

If your business is getting actors jobs, then obviously human capital (labor) would be in the forefront of your mind.

If your business is a widget factory that requires 1,000 unskilled laborers and a lot of machinery, then human capital (labor) would be your last worry.

So once again, it's a bad question.

You know, there are online classes in basic economics...

a reply to: Lumenari

What part of intellectual labor did you not understand?

Edit: I just re-read you comment... are you seriously bringing forth simple wealth of nations economics into a thread asking a question about which is more valuable for humanity; the value of labor over capital or the other way around?

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Lumenari

What part of intellectual labor did you not understand?

Intellectual labor is human capital.

By definition.

I'm sorry... I answered your question (as badly formed as it was) but you don't understand the answer.

I can't do anything about that.

a reply to: Lumenari

OK, so what is more valuable to a persons business venture, the capital or the labor put in?

a reply to: strongfp

Can Capital exist without labor? Can labor exist without Capital?. I would suggest labor has always existed before Capitol. It always depends on the level of sophistication. The Aboriginals were doing quite well, and if someone sitting on a Chest of gold would suggest they work for them in exchange for some, the reaction would be humor.

Depends on if you have enough capital for it to sustain it's own growth. For example, if I won the lottery, I would live on the interest or investment income. But right now if I don't work, I don't eat.