U.S. home prices are down to 1895 levels

[heavenlyboy34]

The extent of that devaluation can be measured and compensated. Land has still greatly increased in value compared to average wages (the biggest single component of overall costs), and far more relative to the prices of standard commodities. The prices of many commodities such as crops, steel and other industrial metals, chemicals, etc. are only a few times higher now even in nominal terms. Land is thousands of times higher.

Care to provide some actual statistics? I have a chart here that shows a major decline in property value :

[Roy L]

We know that computers are cheaper, regardless of money, because the amount of man-hours required to produce similar outputs is far greater.

Computers aren't a good example, because they are far cheaper now even in nominal terms. In 1983 I paid $2K for my first computer, an Apple ][+ with 64K of memory, 320x192 amber monitor, keyboard (what do you mean, "mouse"?), printer, two 140K floppy drives and NO hard drive. Today I can get an incomparably superior system for $400.

[Roy L]

Care to provide some actual statistics? I have a chart here that shows a major decline in property value :

?? It's still higher than it was 10 years ago. On the scale of a century's increase, a 40% decline in five years is nothing.

[Steven Douglas]

The amount of dollars (used to buy land) cannot be reasonably compared since our fiat system has greatly weakened our currency.

Wrong. They can easily be compared using a deflator index, as economists do all the time. Economic analysis would be almost impossible without such comparisons.

Interesting take, since the highly massaged deflator index consistently understates inflation even more than the whacked-out CPI...



At least the joke-of-a-flawed-CPI is based on a relatively fixed basket of goods that only sometimes changes using substitutions or all-out eliminations. The GDP deflator, by contrast, is based on constantly artificially weighted and ever-changing groups of domestically produced goods only. How do you get from 2012 to 1912 using either as a base year when the basket of goods used for a deflator can change and be weighted so drastically from just one year to the next?

Deflator index my butt, it's one of the most highly massaged and over-rated quack curves employed by government statisticians - I shouldn't be surprised that you invoked it, but I am.

For those interested, here's a good piece that deals with that subject, talking specifically about those who are wont to outright LIE and embrace lies so long as they are found to be "in good agreement" with their own agendas and governing presuppositions:

[MattintheCrown]

Computers aren't a good example, because they are far cheaper now even in nominal terms. In 1983 I paid $2K for my first computer, an Apple ][+ with 64K of memory, 320x192 amber monitor, keyboard (what do you mean, "mouse"?), printer, two 140K floppy drives and NO hard drive. Today I can get an incomparably superior system for $400.

That was my point. I bought my first computer when I went to college in '98. It was a pentium 2, and cost me $2K. I got a much more powerful machine for my $2K than you did for yours, and your $2K was more money in '83 than mine was in '98. The same amount of labor buys much more computing power, every year.

[ItsTime]

How long is that going to last?

It is still going to depreciate in real terms, and you can do better with an older house, many of which also need few repairs. I've found that older houses that were solid, quality upper-middle class houses when built (copper wiring and pipes, 2x6 framing, etc.) often need few or no repairs even after 50 or more years, while a cheaply built house will have problems almost from the get-go. Just make sure you get a competent inspection so you know the house's issues.

My rate is fixed. A roof would need to be repaired or replaced after 50 years. At least here in the north east.

[Steven Douglas]

The same amount of labor buys much more computing power, every year.

And you conclude that it's a statement about the constancy of the value of labor, rather than the effects of ever-changing technology (more efficient and intelligent use of resources as a primary driver of competition in an highly competitive market) on supply and demand. Especially demand, once firms realized that we were willing to scrap a perfectly functional $2k computer after only a year if one with sufficient improvements came along. That's hardware and software, as both are drivers of both demand and the need for better, stronger, smaller, faster, with massive competition driving the need to make it all cheaper.

Your comparison would be apples to firetrucks were it not for the fact that you are ignoring the Intelligence Supply component (more computing power for each individual) as a form of capital (e.g., software, specialized skill sets). That's a different curve altogether in highly competitive labor markets. The very technology improvements you alluded to required specialized kinds of labor, and most of all a division of labor that the Austrian School predicts should cause prosperity even in the face of falling prices. Not just for technology, but for labor itself.

I design a better mousetrap. You get more mousetrap for the same money every year, but as a mousetrap designer and "intelligence capitalist" my labor demand curve skyrockets. We're both happy, but labor was not a constant in either case because I, a Technology "Laborer", am in that mix. But I'm not the only mousetrap designer. Others notice how lucrative it is for me and jump onto that competition bandwagon, forcing me to hone my craft even further. Whether I'm a mousetrap designer or a design firm (many customers vs. one), the technology improvements I supply commands a higher price.

How do you make the comparison meaningful for labor vs. increased computing power? Your improved computer performed work for the same hours, but at an increased power efficiency as well as quantity and quality of output. However, to keep from getting scrapped yourself, you might have had to learn Excel, Word, and perhaps some kind of specialized inventory program just to keep pace with your labor competitors -- to even keep your job, let alone earn the same amount. So is that really the "same amount of labor"? If you only equate labor to hours worked for a given price, then perhaps. But that's not an even comparison. To equate it to a computer, you need to look at your increased efficiency, your quantity or quality of output at a given price. Viewed on equal terms, you may not have performed the "same amount of labor" at all, any more than your improved computer did.

You yourself - your brain - is part of the efficiency and technology upgrade. YOU, the individual, now have more computing power with your acquired skills, which would normally cause your price to go up, just like individual computers could have, were it not for the millions of others just like you making similar improvements in your particular, and highly competitive, labor market. So while you are getting resources that are more efficiently allocated for the same money every year, so might your firm be getting more from you -- at a cost that would otherwise go down in a growing economy with a sound currency and a perfectly competitive market, without any harm to you.

Also, the same amount of labor (whose labor, btw, yours?) gets you more computing power but less health care in a market that is anything but free and perfectly competitive, with a currency that is anything but sound. We see strong curve departures for two different markets in both directions, as the labor required for one person to purchase a given thing goes in completely opposite directions. Is that supposed to tell us something about labor? I take that as a statement about the market itself, with everything dynamic and no constant in the mix, including labor.

[Brian4Liberty]

Don't you know that your landownership just makes you a dupe of the greedy, privileged, landowning rich and the corporations they own?"

Now there we go!

There actually is a point to be made there, although not in that particular example. People tend to contradict themselves, and they also tend to play right into the hands of the Oligarchy on many issues.

For instance, it's interesting to see people who have the vast majority of their income coming in the form of fully taxed wages (earned income) arguing that we must continue the income tax "because the government needs income from somewhere", and at the same time, they have some tiny sum that comes from capital gains, and they adamantly argue for zero capital gains tax.

Or the tax deductibility of home loan interest payments. "I am against government interference in the economy and private business, but don't take away my home interest deduction!"

[MattintheCrown]

And you conclude that it's a statement about the constancy of the value of labor, rather than the effects of ever-changing technology (more efficient and intelligent use of resources as a primary driver of competition in an highly competitive market) on supply and demand.

No. The fact that computers are much cheaper to manufacture allows the same amount of labor to purchase much more computing power.

[HOLLYWOOD]

95% of the jobs lost were middle class workers... the Middle class is the backbone of the economy. Government and their crony money masters have stolen the wealth and the people have less less have money to spend as taxes and fees increase at all levels of government, they love using the greatest hidden tax of all, INFLATION.

[Steven Douglas]

No. The fact that computers are much cheaper to manufacture allows the same amount of labor to purchase much more computing power.

So disjointed on so many different levels.

For one, you just conflated "cheaper to manufacture" with "more computing power". What causes computers to be "cheaper to manufacture"? If you only took it from that level alone, you could see a labor-siphoning effect, and possibly a zero-sum gain. Labor is a factor of production in the "cheaper to manufacture" equation. It is not "the same labor" on that end, because computers that were once made by laborers in Silicon Valley are now being made by laborers in China and elsewhere. That explains only PART of why computers are cheaper to manufacture, and so you've really said nothing at all. If someone across the pond labors cheaper than I do, it is not surprising that I can get "more for my labor". Where's the magic in that?

Another factor of production is efficiency. The same labor, materials and equipment producing more goods. Even that requires more expensive labor, because armies of divided and more expensive labor are responsible for designing and implementing these improvements. And even then, "cheaper to manufacture" is NOT what gives a computer more computing power. That was another form of labor that accomplished that.

You keep saying "the same labor", as if that is precisely understood and established. What you are really saying is that "same amount of money" will purchase more efficiently allocated resources from an highly competitive industry. You want that "same amount of money" to automatically equate to, and be interchangeable with, the "same amount of labor", without having to qualify what that means, or actually argue that point or along those lines.

Again, the same amount of WHOSE labor? I labor smarter all the time, and in a niche with high demand and few competitors, which means I get more money for "the same amount of labor". So my particular curve is even more dramatic than yours. I get even MORE computing power for a LESSER AMOUNT OF LABOR. Why? Because labor is not a constant, any more than price or computing power are.

[Roy L]

My rate is fixed.

3.5% for the full amortization period?? Who was fool enough to give you that?

A roof would need to be repaired or replaced after 50 years. At least here in the north east.

AFAIK 30 years is more normal for a roof almost anywhere.

[Roy L]

Interesting take, since the highly massaged deflator index consistently understates inflation even more than the whacked-out CPI...

I did not specify the GDP deflator you are talking about, nor the CPI (which you obviously don't understand are measuring two quite different things for totally different purposes). Any price index has weaknesses, and I would prefer a more honest one based on commodity prices, but there you go.

At least the joke-of-a-flawed-CPI is based on a relatively fixed basket of goods that only sometimes changes using substitutions or all-out eliminations. The GDP deflator, by contrast, is based on constantly artificially weighted and ever-changing groups of domestically produced goods only.

Of the two, I consider the GDP deflator more honest. But you have to understand what it is measuring. Which you clearly do not.

How do you get from 2012 to 1912 using either as a base year when the basket of goods used for a deflator can change and be weighted so drastically from just one year to the next?

There are better deflators that can get at the parameters of interest. The Producer Price Index is one.

Deflator index my butt, it's one of the most highly massaged and over-rated quack curves employed by government statisticians - I shouldn't be surprised that you invoked it, but I am.

Whereas I am not surprised that you don't know what it is, how it works, or why.

[Roy L]

People tend to contradict themselves, and they also tend to play right into the hands of the Oligarchy on many issues.

Working people who oppose land value taxation are all very much in that category.

For instance, it's interesting to see people who have the vast majority of their income coming in the form of fully taxed wages (earned income) arguing that we must continue the income tax "because the government needs income from somewhere", and at the same time, they have some tiny sum that comes from capital gains, and they adamantly argue for zero capital gains tax.

Bingo. And even more, homeowners who pay $10K/yr in taxes on their wages and consumption, and $5K/yr in mortgage interest, and get back $5K/yr in land rent, adamantly argue for the tax-funded welfare subsidy giveaway to landowners that makes them $10K/yr poorer.

Or the tax deductibility of home loan interest payments. "I am against government interference in the economy and private business, but don't take away my home interest deduction!"

It's worse than that: the mortgage interest deduction just makes the price of land go up, so they not only have to make up the difference with their other taxes, they don't even get more affordable housing!

[Steven Douglas]

Any price index has weaknesses, and I would prefer a more honest one based on commodity prices, but there you go.

Of the two, I consider the GDP deflator more honest. But you have to understand what it is measuring. Which you clearly do not.

It doesn't matter, as I have a pretty good handle on the Roy L Persuasive Index. Talk about a deflator, albeit of another kind.

[MattintheCrown]

So disjointed on so many different levels.

For one, you just conflated "cheaper to manufacture" with "more computing power".

No, I didn't.

What causes computers to be "cheaper to manufacture"? If you only took it from that level alone, you could see a labor-siphoning effect, and possibly a zero-sum gain. Labor is a factor of production in the "cheaper to manufacture" equation. It is not "the same labor" on that end, because computers that were once made by laborers in Silicon Valley are now being made by laborers in China and elsewhere. That explains only PART of why computers are cheaper to manufacture, and so you've really said nothing at all. If someone across the pond labors cheaper than I do, it is not surprising that I can get "more for my labor". Where's the magic in that?

That's part of it, but not the biggest part. They've been built by cheap labor for a long time.

Another factor of production is efficiency. The same labor, materials and equipment producing more goods. Even that requires more expensive labor, because armies of divided and more expensive labor are responsible for designing and implementing these improvements. And even then, "cheaper to manufacture" is NOT what gives a computer more computing power. That was another form of labor that accomplished that.

Efficiency is not a factor of production. And I never said it was the fact that they're cheaper to manufacture that gave them more computing power.

You keep saying "the same labor", as if that is precisely understood and established. What you are really saying is that "same amount of money" will purchase more efficiently allocated resources from an highly competitive industry.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

You want that "same amount of money" to automatically equate to, and be interchangeable with, the "same amount of labor", without having to qualify what that means, or actually argue that point or along those lines.

Money can be debased, labor cannot.

Again, the same amount of WHOSE labor?

The average worker.

I labor smarter all the time,

There's no way that's true.

and in a niche with high demand and few competitors, which means I get more money for "the same amount of labor". So my particular curve is even more dramatic than yours. I get even MORE computing power for a LESSER AMOUNT OF LABOR. Why? Because labor is not a constant, any more than price or computing power are.

In all times, there are workers who are more or less productive. But at all times, labor is the ultimate measure of value. It's the constant.

[Steven Douglas]

Efficiency is not a factor of production.

What the hell are you talking about? Efficiency is the measure of factors of production as they are optimized and minimized.

http://www.agriinfo.in/default.aspx?...10&topicid=196

Money can be debased, labor cannot.

Of course labor can be debased, don't be silly. Every good land socialist know that just taxing labor debases it. And if you have someone in power to artificially control of supply and/or price they can debauch labor, up or down, completely distorting the market. Make-work programs, protectionist unions of all kinds. The AMA debauched medical labor for years through accreditation controls and limiting the number of doctors who could be admitted into practice.

Even then, in the absence of labor distorting behavior in the market, labor is anything but a constant.

The average worker.

Whatever that means. If you're losing the argument on individuals you can always weight, average, collectivize, homogenize and regard everything in aggregates only. A spoon full of that sugar makes the lies go down easier.

In all times, there are workers who are more or less productive.

Correct, and unless you're in a union, we're not "all in it together".

But at all times, labor is the ultimate measure of value. It's the constant.

Complete non sequitur, a baseless assertion that you didn't even argue, except to assert it from your own baseless premise. Sounds Marxist to me. Or Georgist, whatever.

[heavenlyboy34]

Complete non sequitur, a baseless assertion that you didn't even argue, except to assert it from your own baseless premise. Sounds Marxist to me. Or Georgist, whatever.

Exactly. Another thing Matt conveniently omits is automation. Automation destroys labor all the time. (quick, name a major abacus manufacturer!) There's nothing "constant" about labor at all. One day technology may reach a point where every labor intensive job is automated-then where's the value going to come from?

[MattintheCrown]

Exactly. Another thing Matt conveniently omits is automation. Automation destroys labor all the time. (quick, name a major abacus manufacturer!) There's nothing "constant" about labor at all. One day technology may reach a point where every labor intensive job is automated-then where's the value going to come from?

Well? Where is it going to come from? If, theoretically, no one had to labor to get whatever they wanted, how would there be any meaningful economic value?

[heavenlyboy34]

Well? Where is it going to come from? If, theoretically, no one had to labor to get whatever they wanted, how would there be any meaningful economic value?

People would create value through non-intensive labor. Things like translation (my field), and so on can't be truly automated because they are distinctly human. (never rely on a computer translator, btw...they all suck) Plenty of other products and services can't be created by machines too. You're going to have to accept the fact that the value of labor is entirely subjective.

[MattintheCrown]

What the hell are you talking about? Efficiency is the measure of factors of production as they are optimized and minimized.

http://www.agriinfo.in/default.aspx?...10&topicid=196

But it's not a factor of production itself.

Of course labor can be debased, don't be silly. Every good land socialist know that just taxing labor debases it. And if you have someone in power to artificially control of supply and/or price they can debauch labor, up or down, completely distorting the market. Make-work programs, protectionist unions of all kinds. The AMA debauched medical labor for years through accreditation controls and limiting the number of doctors who could be admitted into practice.

The term 'debase' does not accurately describe what taxing labor does.

Whatever that means. If you're losing the argument on individuals you can always weight, average, collectivize, homogenize and regard everything in aggregates only. A spoon full of that sugar makes the lies go down easier.

That's just stupid. If I say "women" are smaller than men, you'd reply with "Oh? Which women? Have you ever heard of Brittany Griner?" Then I'd point out that I'm speaking in the aggregate sense. And then you'd accuse me of lying. Because you are an absurd, absurd man.

Correct, and unless you're in a union, we're not "all in it together".

Actually, we pretty much are.

Complete non sequitur, a baseless assertion that you didn't even argue, except to assert it from your own baseless premise. Sounds Marxist to me. Or Georgist, whatever.

Actually, the concept traces to Adam Smith. And don't BS that something sounds either Marxist or Georgist to you, as you've read neither.

[MattintheCrown]

People would create value through non-intensive labor.

LOL, thanks for agreeing with me.

Things like translation (my field), and so on can't be truly automated because they are distinctly human. (never rely on a computer translator, btw...they all suck) Plenty of other products and services can't be created by machines too.

Now they can't. But you're the one that posited the hypothetical of every "labor intensive" job being automated. Presumably, machines would be better at translating by then as well.

You're going to have to accept the fact that the value of labor is entirely subjective.

No, it's not. If people didn't need to labor, they wouldn't have use for trade. Realistically, it's unlikely that automation will ever reach your hypothetical point; they'll always be need for labor. It's the means by which we satisfy want.

[Roy L]

What the hell are you talking about? Efficiency is the measure of factors of production as they are optimized and minimized.

But is not itself a production factor. You are talking nonsense. As usual.

Of course labor can be debased, don't be silly. Every good land socialist know that just taxing labor debases it. And if you have someone in power to artificially control of supply and/or price they can debauch labor, up or down, completely distorting the market. Make-work programs, protectionist unions of all kinds. The AMA debauched medical labor for years through accreditation controls and limiting the number of doctors who could be admitted into practice.

And it still does. But I would suggest looking up "debase" and "debauch" in a good dictionary.

Even then, in the absence of labor distorting behavior in the market, labor is anything but a constant.

It is a constant inasmuch as people aren't changing noticeably. They still need to sleep, they still need to eat, they still have only a certain amount of mental and physical energy they can devote to production, etc. Economics does not have a standard of measure as physical sciences do, but typical labor is a pretty good standard measure of value. Not only is it the largest single component of product and service costs, it is also a good measure of how much people perceive themselves to be giving in return for something they want.

If you're losing the argument on individuals you can always weight, average, collectivize, homogenize and regard everything in aggregates only. A spoon full of that sugar makes the lies go down easier.

LOL! The existence of variation does not affect the usefulness of statistical measures such as averages. OTC, it is what makes them useful. By looking at means and standard deviations, we can know that Americans have been getting fatter. Without such statistical measures, observations of increasing obesity are just anecdotes. The fact that you are arguing against the use of statistics in economics shows just how far off the rails you are.

Correct, and unless you're in a union, we're not "all in it together".

To a great extent, we are. At least, the bottom 99% are...

Complete non sequitur, a baseless assertion that you didn't even argue, except to assert it from your own baseless premise.

It is highly plausible, as other candidates all have serious problems.

Sounds Marxist to me. Or Georgist, whatever.

As you have never demonstrated any acquaintance whatsoever with either analysis -- and I mean at all -- that is not very surprising.

[Roy L]

Exactly. Another thing Matt conveniently omits is automation. Automation destroys labor all the time.

It does no such thing. It replaces labor, freeing human beings to perform more valuable labor machines can't do.

There's nothing "constant" about labor at all.

In one sense, it varies tremendously. But in another sense, it is still the same as ever.

One day technology may reach a point where every labor intensive job is automated-then where's the value going to come from?

If that ever happens, the value will be coming from the people who created the system. But landowners and other privileged interests will then be taking it all, and still making no commensurate contribution in return.

[heavenlyboy34]

LOL, thanks for agreeing with me.

Now they can't. But you're the one that posited the hypothetical of every "labor intensive" job being automated. Presumably, machines would be better at translating by then as well.

No, there is no way a machine can do as accurate a job as a human. A machine will always use a literal translation when more often than not the figurative one is correct. Machines will also never be able to keep up with changes in colloquial speech. If you look in a dictionary for "cool", for example, you won't find the colloquial definition, except in specialized books. A machine (even with the most advanced AI) would never know when to use which definition-it gets many times more complicated with inflected languages like Russian. You would need to develop a machine with a language center in its "brain", which simply can't be done (we can't even do it with humans-which is why translation is in high demand). The job of translating is not "labor intensive"-I meant physical labor-which I should have specified. I apologize. (I can sit here all day translating documents and not get tired at all)

No, it's not. If people didn't need to labor, they wouldn't have use for trade.

Nonsense. Even children trade (I traded all the time-barter and through monetary exchange) and they typically don't "labor" (as in wage labor-which is the topic at hand).

Realistically, it's unlikely that automation will ever reach your hypothetical point; they'll always be need for labor. It's the means by which we satisfy want.

Actually, it's quite likely. Short of an apocalyptic event, technology will continue to advance very quickly. ~100 years ago no one imagined machines replacing welders and other laborers-now it's SOP.

[Roy L]

People would create value through non-intensive labor.

You're not responding to the premise, which is that machines will be able to do ALL kinds of labor better than people.

Things like translation (my field), and so on can't be truly automated because they are distinctly human.

Nonsense. Translation programs are improving all the time. There is no evidence of an upper bound on how good they can get.

(never rely on a computer translator, btw...they all suck)

They suck a lot less than they used to. Think about the kind of intelligence demonstrated by the Jeopardy-playing program, "Watson." Do you think that is the end-point of artificial intelligence? Consider a translation program that has a database of all the material ever translated between two given languages, and just looks everything up until it can construct a good match. That kind of power is coming soon, and it is only the beginning.

Plenty of other products and services can't be created by machines too.

Not yet. But I can remember a time when many people thought no computer would ever defeat the world chess champion. Computer programs already fly better than human pilots, as the Air France crash off Brazil showed.

You're going to have to accept the fact that the value of labor is entirely subjective.

Value in the relevant sense -- market value -- cannot possibly be subjective, as I have proved to you many times. The Austrian "subjective theory of value" is nothing but self-refuting nonsense.

[heavenlyboy34]

If that ever happens, the value will be coming from the people who created the system. But landowners and other privileged interests will then be taking it all, and still making no commensurate contribution in return.

So? The people who were previously doing labor will now have the luxury of earning higher wages and enjoying lower prices for consumer goods. Why do land owners need to make a "contribution"? No one is owed anything material in this world just because they exist. Certainly land is a unique thing and must be treated as such-which we can agree on-but this fact does not demonstrate an obligation of the land owner to anyone.

[heavenlyboy34]

You're not responding to the premise, which is that machines will be able to do ALL kinds of labor better than people.

Actually, I did. I pointed out that there are certain things a machine simply can't do because it lacks a human brain, language center, etc

Nonsense. Translation programs are improving all the time. There is no evidence of an upper bound on how good they can get.

No, it's not nonsense. A computer doesn't understand the nuances of regional dialects, slang, and different time periods-and simply can't.

They suck a lot less than they used to. Think about the kind of intelligence demonstrated by the Jeopardy-playing program, "Watson." Do you think that is the end-point of artificial intelligence? Consider a translation program that has a database of all the material ever translated between two given languages, and just looks everything up until it can construct a good match. That kind of power is coming soon, and it is only the beginning.

As I said before, a machine can never understand context, style, etc. Language is undergoing constant change. Lexicographers will never be able to program a machine that can keep pace with the evolution of human language. (compare the different ways "cool" is used and has been used in history)

Not yet. But I can remember a time when many people thought no computer would ever defeat the world chess champion. Computer programs already fly better than human pilots, as the Air France crash off Brazil showed.

Observing patterns like those machines does not require a complex language center, which simply cannot be replicated.

Value in the relevant sense -- market value -- cannot possibly be subjective, as I have proved to you many times. The Austrian "subjective theory of value" is nothing but self-refuting nonsense.

You've made this claim, but the evidence isn't convincing (except perhaps to folks who find theory more convincing than practice).

[Roy L]

No, there is no way a machine can do as accurate a job as a human.

Not yet, but it will certainly come in the future.

A machine will always use a literal translation when more often than not the figurative one is correct.

Garbage. It is absurd to claim you know what machines "will always" do.

Machines will also never be able to keep up with changes in colloquial speech.

ROTFL!! Through their access to the Net, they will be able to do it far faster and better than humans.

If you look in a dictionary for "cool", for example, you won't find the colloquial definition, except in specialized books.

It is in ONLINE dictionaries!!!

A machine (even with the most advanced AI) would never know when to use which definition-it gets many times more complicated with inflected languages like Russian.

Machines can handle inflection easily. There is no reason to think it could not figure out which usage is intended.

You would need to develop a machine with a language center in its "brain", which simply can't be done (we can't even do it with humans-which is why translation is in high demand).

Unless you are now quite old or die young, it will happen in your lifetime. Take it to the bank.

Nonsense. Even children trade (I traded all the time-barter and through monetary exchange) and they typically don't "labor" (as in wage labor-which is the topic at hand).

They trade because things are SCARCE. If machines can perform any labor, things will no longer be scarce.

Actually, it's quite likely. Short of an apocalyptic event, technology will continue to advance very quickly. ~100 years ago no one imagined machines replacing welders and other laborers-now it's SOP.

Actually, some people ~100 years ago imagined exactly that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R.

[Steven Douglas]

Value in the relevant sense -- market value -- cannot possibly be subjective, as I have proved to you many times. The Austrian "subjective theory of value" is nothing but self-refuting nonsense.

Oh, don't you wish. Everything you espouse is self-refuting nonsense, Roy.

What do you think market value is, if not abject subjectivity even in its freest and most idealized form. That absolutely inescapable subjectivity is only shifted to subjective others when the market is interfered with, as market individual subjectivity is replaced by someone else's.

Of course, there are those think they can outclever reality and logic by simply calling their subjectivity "objective" -- as if subjective normative statements can be made positives by declaration, and with enough well-placed references to something objective. But that's a god delusion on their parts. They're humans making decisions, and no exception to the rule of subjectivity.