Hi bro, I see little difference between socialism and fascism, they are beliefs which put the state above the individuals who populate it.

So socialism or fascism by stealth remains the same.

The only difference, the clothing of the socialists like everything else about them, is mediocre versus the fascists who better dress sense and smarter uniforms : - )

Passy “market and pricing mechanisms to cure all ills (like world hunger and global warming,)”

The goal of socialism (per Lenin), is communism and we know how the communists used starvation to keep their people in check. Regarding environmental degradation, the problems of the Great Lakes and Three Mile Island pale into insignificance compared to Chernobyl and what was left of the Aral Sea before the collapse of communism.

I see the left wing entryists turning the greens to the interests of international socialism, there is only a living hell as the real consequence of forgetting how badly they stuffed up Russia after they stole the chance to exercise power.

Re “profit “, the effort of the “worker” so called, is only deployed by someone risking capital to pay the wages and risk getting a sale from the effort of the workers labour.

The worker is only one link in the supply chain, not the entire supply chain.

Risk, when it is unreturned (and that is not an uncommon event) is a cost born by the entrepreneur and it is reasonable for him to receive rewards from current risks, otherwise he would simply go broke.

The cost of implementing innovation and productivity measures, which Yabby mentioned, represent risks which the entrepreneur undertook, not the labourer.

Certainly, the wealth which USA produces by engaging in entrepreneurial linertarianism produced better overall result than the socialism system of your myths and dreams.

Whilst some are wealthier and some are poorer in USA system, all are equally poorest in the socialist systems, equality of poverty and mediocrity is not something which I want for me or my children.

Yabby “Clearly its innovation that will solve climate change,”

absolutely right,

not socialist carbon taxes

bro

I think there is an answer to your question. I was googling and came across this, a review of a book by Wolff in a paper whose politics i don't actually support, green left.

The review is by Alex Miller

The link is: http://www.greenleft.org.au/2005/628/34615

Here's a snippet.

Wolff goes on to deal with the rejoinder that’s already on your lips: “The obvious reply is that this claim is absurd. All goods contain labour. They don’t contain steel. So how can steel be the source of all value? But, unfortunately, this argument equally condemns the labour theory of value. For ... not all goods do contain labour. Uncultivated land ... [for] example.”

If there are problems for Marx here, Wolff fails to bring them out. For one thing, he describes the labour theory of value in terms that Marx explicitly repudiates. According to Wolff, the theory states that “labour is the source of all value and all profits”, while Marx writes at the opening of the Critique of the Gotha Program: “Labour is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labour, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labour power.”

Moreover, uncultivated land can hardly be cited as a counter-example to the labour theory of value, since the labour theory of value is a theory about what determines the exchange value of commodities. Commodities are objects produced by human labour for the purposes of exchange, so that uncultivated land simply falls outside the scope of the theory and thus cannot be cited as a counterexample to it. Marx is in fact quite explicit about this in chapter one of the first volume of Capital: “A thing can be a use-value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, etc.”

Passy,

OK, so Marx explicitly ruled out "uncultivated" land.

What about a house located on the beachfront, and an exact copy located away from the beach. Why is the beachfront house worth more? Both were built with the same materials and the same amount of labour.

*The Saudis -and the rest of the oil producing nations- can sell their oil for 10 times what it costs to produce, because they are not competing with each other.*

Not really. Don't forget that in the late 90s, oil was selling
for 10$ a barrel, so nobody bothered to search for the expensive
to find stuff and invest tens of billions. Along came China-India,
demand took off and the rest is what we see today. The lag
time from deciding to search for oil, until its in your tank, can
be 5-7 years. The easy to find stuff is gone. So its supply and
demand in action. The West can only blame itself for relying
completely on cheap ME oil, with no plan B for energy supplies.

Take a look at iron-ore and coal, both of which have more then
doubled in price this year. Its exactly the same story, only this
time Australia cashes in. That includes you, as a super fund
investor.( well most Australians anyhow)

*Due to these two devices, real capital (land) has become so expensive that the only way anyone can become a farmer these days, is if one inherits.*

The problem for farming is that it is hardly profitable, but there
are people leasing land, doing ok, if they are prepared to take the
risk. Tree farms, hobby farms and other uses for land, have inflated
its value. You can't blame the banks for that. Their spreads today
are narrower then they ever were. Why banks have done so well is
because Aussies are such keen borrowers!

This says it all:

Modern Epoch Air Trading, by M. Kerjman
http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=1043058