I think we've learned a great deal about the insidious nature of capitalism since this publication. The examples given are flawed. If the undertaker is asserting that because he must pay for work on a product he can't yet sell, that's simply part of his COSTS that must be accounted for by him. The workman's labor doesn't lose value because the producer is a poor businessman. More troubling is the later claim that competition will moderate profits. We all know this won't work if the larger producer is not prevented from using his position in the market to put his competitors out of business or prevent them from starting. This is done through regulation. I'm amazed that anyone can posit that workers are paid the value of their labor, it's absurd. Nothing exists or has value without labor, even the capital of the producers.
I think we've learned a great deal about the insidious nature of capitalism since this publication. The examples given are flawed. If the undertaker is asserting that because he must pay for work on a product he can't yet sell, that's simply part of his COSTS that must be accounted for by him. The workman's labor doesn't lose value because the producer is a poor businessman. More troubling is the later claim that competition will moderate profits. We all know this won't work if the larger producer is not prevented from using his position in the market to put his competitors out of business or prevent them from starting. This is done through regulation. I'm amazed that anyone can posit that workers are paid the value of their labor, it's absurd. Nothing exists or has value without labor, even the capital of the producers.