20 14-05- 13 Falk technology
Labor creates value? All wet!
(dictated by Professor Ju Qiang and arranged by academic secretary)
"Labor creates wealth" is the core idea of surplus value theory, which is replaced by the academic language of "old horse" (the full name may have been lost by crabs): labor creates value.
The above view is completely wrong. Anyone who has studied western economics knows that this conclusion is extremely absurd. This conclusion has worsened the labor-capital relationship, caused the antagonism between people, and formed the concept that the overall interests of society are zero-sum games, which provided a theoretical basis for the government's excessive intervention in the market and distorted the image of entrepreneurs. This is one of the theoretical disasters of economic stagnation in the 30 years before the founding of the People's Republic of China.
The correct expression is:
Labor may create wealth, and labor may also damage wealth.
When Ma Lao founded the theory of surplus value, the economy was still very backward, so he didn't consider the combination of labor and social demand. If labor is not highly integrated with social needs, the essence is to destroy wealth.
The old horse thinks that wealth (value) is the average working time of the general society condensed in commodities, which is wrong!
For example, there are two food companies called Company A and Company B, each with 1000 workers.
Company A's employees worked hard for one year. Due to the high combination of product direction and social demand, the products sold well, and Company A made a profit of 5 million! Because of the existence of company A, the satisfaction of social needs is higher and the society is happier, so company A has created wealth.
Company B also worked hard for a year. Because the boss misjudged the demand, everyone didn't like his cooking. As a result, the inventory was like a mountain, moldy and rotten, and the company lost 20 million. In fact, this company wasted a lot of social resources, including flour, milk, sugar, cooking oil, electricity and equipment. To the whole society, he is destroying wealth.
The 1000 employees of Company B, though working hard and making progress, are actually endangering the society (although this conclusion is difficult to accept emotionally).
We replaced the above two companies with women's clothing factories, catering companies, cosmetics, daily necessities, beverages, electrical appliances and furniture industries ... The analysis results are the same. Labor that conforms to the direction of demand creates wealth, while labor that deviates from the direction of social demand damages wealth. (Please pay attention to Juqiang WeChat public platform: juqiang0 1)
So the phrase "labor creates wealth" is wrong and should be changed to:
Labor that meets social needs creates wealth, while labor that deviates from social needs damages wealth.
Anyone who has been in charge of an enterprise knows that it is very difficult to judge social needs, which are characterized by variability, unpredictability and rapid change.
In order to keep track of social needs, bosses often stay up all night and take great risks. Because of the wrong judgment on the direction of demand, bankrupt people abound, and even the success rate of new product development of multinational companies is only 14%.
Because labor that closely meets social needs creates wealth, and demand judgment is the boss's business, especially strategic demand judgment, it should be said that the boss and employees jointly create wealth.
Ma Lao's view is very primitive, mainly from the perspective of farmers. As long as you plant the land, you will certainly create wealth. Materials and food were in short supply at that time. Now, things are different. There are many bankruptcies caused by indiscriminate farming in the west.
According to Ma Lao's point of view: enterprises have profits, which are naturally created by laborers, and enterprises have lost money, which has nothing to do with laborers and is regarded as capitalists!
The scientific nature of surplus value theory is very problematic. Ma Lao himself said that learning has class nature. Generally speaking, a scholar is just making up a lie, and the theory of surplus value is really a lie!
For another example, if there are two companies, A and B, which both produce air conditioners, the styles and functions are close to the social needs.
Due to proper management methods, the cost of each air conditioner in Company A is very low, which is 500 yuan, and the profit at the end of the year is 6,543,800+million.
Due to improper management methods, the cost of each air conditioner in Company B is very high. Of the 700 yuan, steel, materials, electricity and equipment were spent more, and the profit at the end of the year was 20 million.
Obviously, Company A is creating wealth and Company B is destroying it. The management labor quality of Company A is higher than that of Company B ... (Please pay attention to Juqiang WeChat public platform: juqiang0 1).
Therefore, the phrase "labor creates wealth" should be changed to:
Social wealth can only be created by labor that meets social needs and has proper management methods, while social wealth will be damaged by labor that deviates from social needs and has improper management methods.
If we study it carefully from an academic point of view, "labor creates wealth" is all wet, and it is right to add many attributive restrictions. Here is no example!
The academic term for labor to create wealth is that the value of commodities is determined by the average general labor time condensed on commodities, which provides a basis for the government to control commodity prices.
If there are thousands of people trapped in the desert, thirsty and dying, the merchants will get a few trucks to drive hundreds of kilometers to deliver water, and the merchants are prepared to turn the water that is usually sold at 1 yuan into 20 yuan. In fact, the transportation cost only increased by 1 cent per bottle.
According to Ma Lao's point of view, the value of a bottle of water for people who are thirsty and dying is the same as that for ordinary people, because the value of goods is determined by the average general labor time condensed on the goods, so the government immediately sent the police to announce the price control of water entering the desert, or claimed that for the benefit of the poor, or in order to be fair, each bottle of water should be priced according to the average general labor time condensed inside, resulting in no one or very few people entering the desert to deliver water.
Dear students, you must have judged that more people died after the government controlled prices than before.
Of course, the above examples are simplified to illustrate the problem, but there are many other examples of government price control leading to a large number of deaths: Wang Mang of China's new dynasty, ancient Rome, and the Great Famine of Stalin's era.