You're about to become very very rich...

Originally posted by ZIPMATT
surplus value wiki link

I cant slip Marx and Engels quotes from this page . Boxed quotes 1 and 2 are applicable re human labour being the source of created wealth .

Marx identifies that surplus value can be measured as profit , but critically that profit having 'form' is not the invisible surplus value, or the rate of surplus value .

Also that while massive wealth has been created in the last 100 and more years (via industrial revolution etc) , also as yet no previous generation had realised the potential of simple human labour to create wealth (for the bourgoise/marx- communist manifesto)

To answer in general again - cause and effect is a correct means of future prediction - and that people need to be employing that notion , but what has been said goes beyond that to say that the simplest basis of business accounting / or wealth valuation , also applies across the board , from the smallest business , to personal life, to societies shared economies , and up to realisation of wealth derived from stock market and corporate profit returns/highest returns available .

The implication in review which is introduced from the first post , and included all the way is moral behaviour - that attempting to realise immoral wealth - cannot, will not and does not mean having the the full benefit of those returns - that cause and effect (future/nature) allows it _not.
This principle is much the same as having two choices - to lie or tell the truth . A lie becomes a liability , while truth is not able to be assailed . One necessitates negation (of the liar) , the other excludes it (from the truthful).
This is the subject of another (my) thread , which again indicates over and again that moral behaviour as being the only sustainable behaviours.

Look again at what Marx elucidated for us - and from that realise we not talking about measured profit itself , but we are including trying to define the 'invisible' surplus values and the rates of surplus value - here in terms of realised wealth .

If looking for derivatives esp economic ones for ways to create/gain monetary or asset/capital wealth then Marx's accounting for human labour is also a key to gaining measured profit, and this would include surplus values, the key is being _self employed . A person will not be in a position to realise his (if he has any) measurable gains - if a person is not self employed his company will control a/c values, until the employee takes no profit, or even any realistic or invisible surplus values from his job.

The point about water - those who have to walk for it - valid point . Yet the maxim/axiom/algorithm still apllies even here - if as a society they do not protect against the negation (eg pollution / overuse/wastage) of that water supply - they will fail to be drinking happliy (realising the wealth) in the future. Neither will they be able to build up from there in better times.

To include example or diversify the point here - consider eating at McDonalds . This company has very cleverly thought out pricing strategies . If knowledge is power then id of these strategies disallows McDonalds from negating us . I am not saying dont eat there. Quite the opposite - because with knowledge of the strategies, (value theory) you take the gain away from the corporate , and not vice versa.
McDs has got a strangle on the beef market globally (rainforest/buyers means strategies against farm gate prices etc etc) This allows them to provide their main product - burgers , at minimal cost to themselves or their customers . McDs are so dependednt on people who go there - for burgers . Burgers are their main reason to go in . Now if you go in and buy eg big mac at cost of £2.69 - that is extremely cheap food , extremely cheap since it is delivered cooked hot edible within 2 or 3 minutes . The minimum wage here then buys a mediocre lunch at a cost of half hours work . The burgers themselves , are an absolute bargain offered at less than cost to mcDs .BUT and its a big but (lol) - do want fries with that ? A drink ? Ice cream ? Go large? Meal 'deal'?
Your answer MUST be NO . And the reason is - they got you in for a burger, now they want to make a profit equalling 100s of % above the actual cost of those additional products. Its McDs basis of business : no profit on burgers, all profit comes from anything else they supply people on top. In some cases it matter 1000s of % profit .
So what we can derive from this is have 2 burgers and not the fries. From the essences of knowledge being power , cause and effect , disallowing future negations of funds , and therefore facilitating realisation of wealth as well, then it is or can be evident again in day to day life that a system of axiom regarding behaviours indiviually, socially (eg family/kids) and economically (or an economic front in this example) , is a categorical imperative.
Why they make business studies an 'option' at school - we do know why that is . Pretty disgusting and immoral reasoning as well .


Anyhow - have a free lunch

This is children's level stuff to hammer the point home - a person can go in the supermarkets , and leave there either wondering if they might have been ripped off, or they can leave there having realised (into their trolley - or two trolleys) the wealth which supermarkets contain .
Some goods are so (via value theory/price strategies/markets knowledge) cheap in supermarkets - you cant afford not to go and buy them there . And again though some 'goods' are so very expensive indeed , if you buy them you _only procure multiple negations - sometimes including that of your own health .

Supermarkets are the modern day battleground of economics , and right there as soon as you walk in - you must protect yourself and your collateral from negation , any negation . Even to the point of walking out empty handed (you must _never steal) .

Truth and lies , again , with honesty and the price strategists predictable lack of moral behaviour , and strife for profit given competition , are the battleground .

Take milk for example even the media is in on the supermarket _sham of milk . What they call miilk is not milk, in newspapers they compare farm gate milk prices with the cost of the watered down and skimmed and settled product they produce . 'Standardised and homogenised' they tell you , 'with water' they dont . The govt allows this through deregulation of ingredient lists and proportions on 'liquids' .
Wine - so many people are guzzling a product which is worse than rip off - its a sin . Its never been near a fermentation process, grape jiuce water and alcohol and some bitter flavourings is what wine is .
Unless you pay £20 a bottle plus . They want average £5 for ethanol and water ? And people pay it ? No wonder then they are rich and most folk are badly in debt. Or under-average accumulators as per quoted book pg 2.

So value theory related to price is again , a very simple concept indeed , but one which we continually miss on the whole. Even grown adults dont realise how much profit influences the corporate - profit is everything to them .

In the supermarket , go for things which cannot be degraded by the food industry - raw products such as flour, butter, those consumable reasonably quickly. Do not buy anything pre-prepared or insensibly packaged - I have seen 'sugarpaste 'spread' sold as similar to nutpaste spread - same price , highly differnt nutrtional value, and critically _cost to the producers.. Check the price on everything , and dont be afraid if a quality product appears not all that cheap - value theory will always apply. Dried fruit, bulk bags of nuts , at the rate these are supplied (although supermarkets disallow surplus value being gained through proper bulk buys) the rate of depreciation (in storage of goods) is an offset - that offest a realised value to oursleves aswell, if we use it.

Know the individual industries - supermarkets dealing in plastics come up with sommetimes offers you'd be insane to turn down . Especially given price comparison from other sources of the same goods . (back into 100s of % or even loss-leader margins) to the extent you could (almost) run a resupply business off of supermarkets as the wholesaler. And in the days of massive corporate power - they often are anyway .

So knowing where are how in supermarkets (a trip round the shelves is a risky business) , is also an example of the application of the theory - realised wealth exists in the absence of the negation of that wealth . In essence, though it will not work in practise, the efforts to defeat public knowledge of home and food economics , by corporate influence throughout society (Powell memo) - profit for these people has become a liability for them.
They are now in the business of protecting lies . As for the likes of John Craven on Countryfile - what a dirty business you are in m8 - John Craven - you are such a plant .

Originally posted by St Udio

Originally posted by lonewolf10
ummmm...what?

a lot of academic gobbley-de-gook and intellectual mindscape fractals...


but what counts are fundamental...time accepted 'values'...
truth honor honesty forthrightness are just 4 of the 'real' things that the majority of any society cherish and aspire to...

 

conversely... real wealth (outside the physical/ mundane realm) are traits-gifts-karmic offerings such as
insights without the delusions, actual telepathy or real unfettered communications between 'minds'...

Altruism and Eglaltarism are personal traits that are corrupted by the current system of darkness which dominates the social fabric...
but will actually gain 'horsepower' as the current system deteoriates/ entropys'


the LIE is that the Liberals are the Vanguard... the first & foremost in the new Paradigm

They are not of advanced thoughts, nor are the Liberals or Progressives the trailblazers of a new paradigm...
they are re-packaged socialists/fascits/communists/globalists/ supremists

 

in a way to NOT add more replies...

you cite : en.wikipedia.org...

yeah... that reduces to a 'value judgement' by U- Me-Others- et al...
what does that mean - or change the OP concept ?

edit on 18-8-2012 by St Udio because: (no reason given)

Good summary. Thought, advanced thought, does not belong to them. The focus must be kept upon material value, so the technocracy may flourish. The beginning is always where the most energy is needed to start motion, which explains why things are so 'screwed up' in amerika. It is a deliberate, organized tightening of material value, which in turn causes more scrambling for this value, which, in turn strangles advanced thought, and we die for lack of knowledge thanks to the puppet masters who stay in hiding. No one's thinking about resonant vibration, zero point energy, or spirituality when clutching to a cellphone dog collar and trying to afford their minutes plan. I think the OP is trying to shift our thinking to place value on intangibles, but he read a bunch of Kant, not Christ. A Christer would show up at your garage sale, and say stuff like: I have a whole bunch of money in my pocket, but I can't give it to you unless you receive it.

Simple pleasures really are the best, you know, but it is a hard, hard thing to sell. Until people begin to mine the unfathomable riches of the spirit, which require a mental desire to find them, as well as a thinning of the material values which cause one to go here and there like rats in mazes every god damned day, it will have to do. They can't think any deeper than this, and even then, it seems necessary to ridicule simplicity, if only to make themselves feel better about finding no joy, or power, in simplicity.

I like your thoughts on the OP.

www.abovetopsecret.com...reply to post by davidmann



some interesting links developing , its of good note to see where people are at with this , and how things are developing here.
Seems as if the world is on the change to me , for the better if we can swing a start to it .

TBH i think jesus was on about categorical imperatives just as much as Kant . Theres a semi- quote of his at the start of the opour own p . But jesus said store up for yourselves good things in _heaven , not 'in the future' .

Marx - was an observer not involved in moral assertion - but immoral implication .
They all have their worth including others imo , and are all in good agreement.
What we as researchers need is a degree of interpretational and translational amelioration and it is up to us to define the connections in related concepts.

The future - is it an intangible or material existence ? Its both , so an over-rider, almost a thing of 'sacred worship' to current (and scientific) value theorists. If negation of moral oversight _proves to lead to wealth negation , which it always has done , if you were kant, or christ himself , or even geographically remote civilisations , with your own phil osophers , if it is a proven fact -

alot of implications lead on if its a proven fact . To value the proper values being 'allowed' to the populous - for them to realise the truth about values - that is proper mmoral valuation , and action , and the preservation of 'value' , another implication is proven facts or observation of scientific 'laws' as it has become - are a determiner of future 'fates' .

Whether 'judgement day' , is scientifically provable or an 'on the way'' fact , is another possible . I beleive we have to drop the strict adherance to symbolically dilivered terms (the literal words used to denote a concept) ,
because we are the users now , and use our own terms . Nothing from the past must negate futures
.