Originally Posted by FXLAX

I don’t have a specific position on what UALALPA did or did not do. But since you brought up this labor theory and an example, it piqued my curiosity.

I understand your example about gold not being worth anything until a human digs it out and cleans it. But what if the gold is thousands of feet in the ground and not 100% pure, and so no group of laborers can dig it out. So someone who can afford to buy or build the machine(s) that can dig that far down takes the risk that there may be gold there and pure enough for it to be worthwhile takes that risk and puts forth the capital to buy or manufacture the machine plus the capital to hire labor to work the machine. In that labor theory, is the labor the only thing that gave that gold value? Would labor have a job if it wasn’t for the person with the capital and willingness to take the risk to use their capital? In other words, is it a one way street where labor is 100% credited with the value or is there a symbiotic relationship in which both the ones who provide the labor and the ones who provide the capital contribute to the value of the gold and the only question is the negotiating capital between the two sides as to the share in the value? Can a laborer without capital make value for himself on the work he does for himself? Would he be paying himself? And if so, he would be working for free since he has no capital. If he is providing a service, then his client is providing the capital for which to pay him for the value of his service. Anything in this theory without capital seems like would be the equivalent to a perpetual motion machine.