Wall Street Occupation

[nettrucker 142]

I actually see the real problem in corruption. All governments are corrupt without exception. as long as the political power gets bribed by the industrial complexes and bankers we will always be enslaved.

As I already stated before a peaceful powershift isn't possible, never has happened in history. So if things are going to change it will be throughout revolution or civil war.

People remain passive as long as they have something to eat. In case the great starving will start due to finance and economical collapse than "maybe" people will be willing to fight, because of simple survival.

In any case I don't foresee anything good for our future nor for the next generations to come.

[Spokesperson 0]

You have to realize that protests and all that kind of things are subversive. People get to meet new people, organize, and show that people aren't alone in their struggle. It's important. Afterwards the movement has been strengthened. It's a gradual process.

[st_dux 26]

Value is determined by the average time it takes for society to complete one unit of a certain good. If there's perfect competition the price will equal the value, but there is no perfect competition.

Proof that the labor theory of value is nonsense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tickle_me_elmo

I doubt even Marx would continue to a support a labor theory of value if he were around today. Look at the software industry: Selling additional copies of software literally has a marginal cost of zero and requires no labor at all. It's clearer today than it ever has been that value is derived from marginal utility, not labor.

Yes, and how do you get capital? By paying your workers less than the values their labor produces.

"Paying your workers less than the values their labor produces" assumes that you already have workers which assumes that you already have capital. In order to accumulate capital to begin with, you must either inherit it, save for it, borrow money for it or use some combination of the three. While it is of course true that some people are in a better position to accomplish this than others, no one is barred from trying, so the most capable tend to succeed. It's called entrepreneurship, and while the potential benefits for the entrepreneur may be huge in the long run, there is a considerable amount of risk associated with starting your own business that does not apply to simply taking a job. Profit motivates the entrepreneur to voluntarily take on that risk, which expands the economy and creates new jobs for people.

Steal away capital? Taking money from other people is theft, and that's what the capitalists do. By taking over the means of production and putting them under democratic rule you put an end to theft.

Your conception of theft is seriously flawed. Putting the means of production under democratic rule means that 51% of the population is authorized to use force to take from the remaining 49%. That is theft. Investing your own money in a business venture and then offering a job to a willing worker for a mutually agreed-upon wage is not. Exploitation? Yes. But not theft.

Edited September 29, 2011 by ST_Dux

[gammadust 12]

aC19fEqR5bA

Are you shocked by this stock market trader's comments?

And don't these bloodsuckers deserve what they will inevitably get?

Whoever thinks people will excuse this forever - or keep their eyes shut - (or this hilk, dehumanized offshoots of this system) because he is being "honest", "upfront", "candid" or simply confessing his crimes, think again...

People are increasing in awareness despite all the odds against. Edited September 29, 2011 by gammadust

[Spokesperson 0]

The marxian labor theory of value is not the same as the labor theory of value. And it has more or less been verified scientifically already unlike faulty liberal economic theories that are unverifiable.

Tickle Me Elmo??

I doubt even Marx would continue to a support a labor theory of value if he were around today. Look at the software industry: Selling additional copies of software literally has a marginal cost of zero and requires no labor at all. It's clearer today than it ever has been that value is derived from marginal utility, not labor.

And that's why there's artificial copy protection and laws to keep prices high. Otherwise the price of a copy would've been close to zero. Marx' theory of value is more relevant today than ever before:

Cutting Edge: Technology, Information Capitalism and Social Revolution

http://www.amazon.com/Cutting-Edge-Technology-Information-Capitalism/dp/1859841856

A robot can build a car. But a robot cannot buy a car ...The explosion in the development of computer- and robotic-based manufacturing is seeing the rapid expansion of laborless production systems. Such systems create enormous instability, both for the overall economy where money previously paid in wages is now invested in labor-saving technology and therefore cannot be spent on goods, and for workers whose jobs are being deskilled or are simply disappearing. Bringing together contributions from workers employed in the new electronics and information industries with work from theorists in economics, politics and science, Cutting Edge provides an up-to-the-minute analysis of the complex relations between technology and work. Individual essays look at topics including the cyclical nature of a technologically driven economy, the privatization of knowledge that new information industries demand, and the strategies that trade unionists and governments might deploy to protect jobs and living standards. Technology has the potential to end material scarcity and lay the foundations for higher forms of human fulfilment. But under existing power structures, it is more likely to exacerbate the poverty and misery under which most people live. Cutting Edge weighs that balance and, in helping us to understand how technology interacts with the production of goods and services, tips it in the direction of a more equal and creative world.

Capitalism is getting more and more in conflict with technology, it once promoted it, today it's more and more inhibiting it. Just like feudalism couldn't stop new technologies from emerging, capitalism won't survive either.

Your conception of theft is seriously flawed. Putting the means of production under democratic rule means that 51% of the population is authorized to use force to take from the remaining 49%. That is theft. Investing your own money in a business venture and then offering a job to a willing worker for a mutually agreed-upon wage is not.

Theft is when you take away other people's labor products against their will. Nobody wants to spend hours collecting profits for capitalists, but they have to becaues otherwise they starve. There can be no free agreements when the other party is holding a gun towards you or when you have to agree to anything because you don't want to starve. It's extremely naïve.

[dysta 10]

Comrade, why don't you discuss about the high-tax rate and scientifically developing country like China, since you're mentioning about the disadvantage of the capitalism. We don't talking about how awesome to be free with Facebook and iPhone, but a house and a wife down here.

[Spokesperson 0]

aC19fEqR5bA

Are you shocked by this stock market trader's comments?

And don't these bloodsuckers deserve what they will inevitably get?

Whoever thinks people will excuse this forever - or keep their eyes shut - (or this hilk, dehumanized offshoots of this system) because he is being "honest", "upfront", "candid" or simply confessing his crimes, think again...

People are increasing in awareness despite all the odds against.

Very interesting.

You can play your cards right and earn a lot of money, just like in a casino. However, you only redistribute wealth, you don't create it. Those who actually CREATE value don't get to keep it, they never get rich. You can only get rich by owning other peoples work, the more the better. If a lot of people make money for you it's a piece of cake. It's time for people who work to claim what's theirs. There is absolutely no need for parasites.

---------- Post added at 05:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------

Comrade, why don't you discuss about the high-tax rate and scientifically developing country like China, since you're mentioning about the disadvantage of the capitalism. We don't talking about how awesome to be free with Facebook and iPhone, but a house and a wife down here.

I'm not sure what you mean.

But you mention taxes. I'm against high taxes, I'm not a reformist that tries to make slavery less "unfair". I'm not trying to improve the conditions of slaves. I want to abolish slavery to begin with, then we can discuss what a fair distribution is. But of course I prefer the high-tax Scandinavian model to the hardly-any tax US one.

[gammadust 12]

Comrade, why don't you discuss about the high-tax rate and scientifically developing country like China, since you're mentioning about the disadvantage of the capitalism. We don't talking about how awesome to be free with Facebook and iPhone, but a house and a wife down here.

That is only because happens to be the place where most of investment capital is landing, not by accident, but by the existence of cheap labor which would be much more expensive to pay in the case of a, so called, "developed country".

It is not only China, BRIC success is exacly and mainly due to this, there exists comparative advantages sufficient enough to justify bigger margins of profit, and therefore ROI (even counting added cost of transport of produced merchandize). This is all fine and dandy, but is literaly killing real economy world wide.

This is as clear as water.

[st_dux 26]

@Spokesperson:

For what it's worth I actually agree with you on IP law. However, you apparently missed the point regarding Tickle Me Elmo. When that toy was first made, it was so popular that people were paying upwards of $1,500 for it. It wasn't worth anywhere near that much from a labor theory of value point of view. Using the exact same amount of labor to produce a similar but not identical toy wouldn't have been worth a fraction of a Tickle Me Elmo, and this sort of thing happens all the time: Something gets popular with higher demand leading to higher prices. How can you reconcile this fact with a labor theory of value?

As for your comment that Marx's labor theory of value has been "more or less scientifically proven," well, that's ridiculous. Value is subjective. You can no more scientifically prove value than you could scientifically prove morality.

There can be no free agreements when the other party is holding a gun towards you...

Do you not see that this is exactly what happens in a socialist system where the majority rules? The 49% have a gun put them and they are forced to give up their property and meet the demands of the 51%.

Those who actually CREATE value don't get to keep it, they never get rich.

It is empirically evident that this is blatantly false. Working people have the ability to invest any extra money that they don't use to live and turn that into various forms of wealth. They can even create their own business. It happens all the time. My own father started work in a low-level manufacturing job at a small machine shop. Roughly thirty years later, he bought it. It makes far more sense to me to allow capable individuals like my father the chance to succeed than it does to hold everyone back to the level of the lowest common denominator, the majority.

[Minutemen 10]

Most probably the only thing which could change things is a new french revolution.

What do you mean exactly by that?

Do you mean that freemason socialist total controll BS which Robespierre and the Jacobins spread, or do you mean a bloodshed?

By the way. I bet if this will continuing, the cops will dress up as black hooded fake anarchists and throw some stones to get the robocop police some reason to drift the Protesters away.

[gammadust 12]

... hold everyone back to the level of the lowest common denominator, the majority.

Lowest Common Denominator is an utter misconception. But I am not having that argument again in this forum.

[Spokesperson 0]

@Spokesperson:

For what it's worth I actually agree with you on IP law. However, you apparently missed the point regarding Tickle Me Elmo. When that toy was first made, it was so popular that people were paying upwards of $1,500 for it. It wasn't worth anywhere near that much from a labor theory of value point of view. Using the exact same amount of labor to produce a similar but not identical toy wouldn't have been worth a fraction of a Tickle Me Elmo, and this sort of thing happens all the time: Something gets popular with higher demand leading to higher prices. How can you reconcile this fact with a labor theory of value?

People can pay whatever they want, that doesn't change a thing. The price depends on supply and demand, but will find an equilibrium roughly corresponding to the value at perfect competition. The time it takes for society to produce something (and its sub-components) is in that case the factor behind the price.

As for your comment that Marx's labor theory of value has been "more or less scientifically proven," well, that's ridiculous. Value is subjective. You can no more scientifically prove value than you could scientifically prove morality.

You know a little about the theory, but you haven't actually studied it completely. You have a couple of misconceptions/don't know enough.

Marx separates what people commonly mean by "value" in spoken language into three parts. He's dissects the atom and finds quarks. The subjective part of that atom is called "use value" and that's mostly what "micro economists" deal with. But what's called "value" is completely objective.

It is empirically evident that this is blatantly false. Working people have the ability to invest any extra money that they don't use to live and turn that into various forms of wealth. They can even create their own business. It happens all the time. My own father started work in a low-level manufacturing job at a small machine shop. Roughly thirty years later, he bought it. It makes far more sense to me to allow capable individuals like my father the chance to succeed than it does to hold everyone back to the level of the lowest common denominator, the majority.

Just like people win on lotteries some people actually turn into capitalists. But as your example shows, you don't get rich by working, you get rich by taking value other people created. It's just like a tax, but it's private. Owners take approx 35% (depending on the country) of what you produce. Just like gambling doesn't create value, investments don't, only human labor does. Why would anyone hold anyone back in socialism when you actually don't have to give away your work to some owner who enjoys police protection.

[nettrucker 142]

What do you mean exactly by that?

Do you mean that freemason socialist total controll BS which Robespierre and the Jacobins spread, or do you mean a bloodshed?

By the way. I bet if this will continuing, the cops will dress up as black hooded fake anarchists and throw some stones to get the robocop police some reason to drift the Protesters away.

I'm not talking about freemason socialist I'm talking about an armed revolution and bloodshed. The ruling class has no problem whatsoever to kill anybody who's in their way. History just repeat itself. A peaceful powershift can't be achieved in my opinion. We are still not desperate enought to make that step, but when we start to starve, then people will most probably act.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Everywhere.

Maybe you could enlighten me with something else than your "ready to think mottos" and tell me where you find queues in front of empty shops in market economies...

Edited September 29, 2011 by ProfTournesol

[walker 0]

Funny, this video was a fake, this guy isn't a trader, he's just making fun of the journalists and like to put himself into the light...

Hi ProfTournesol

Actually there is no proof he is one of the " Yes Men " and the Yes Men deny he is one of theirs.

The story that he was fake was because of a facial similarity to the

but this guy seems not to be the same and has a long record as a trader. So if it is a prank then they have been working on it for years.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/09/27/is-alessio-rastani-a-yes-man/

Both the BBC and other souces are saying they have checked and he is a real Trader

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15078419

Goldman Sachs are yet again being sued for another case of Fraud so he seems to understand what it is up to.

http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-fhfa-lawsuit-2011

Also what he said has been verified by several sources who agreed with what he said with many City traders admiting Alessio Rastani was only speaking the truth and just being "unusually honest," about how traders see the world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15095191

The telling thing is a recent study has confirmed Traders are more psycopathic than hardened criminals.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisbarth/2011/09/26/new-study-old-news-stock-traders-are-psychopaths/

If it is a Prank then it is an excelent one because before the accusations he was fake came out it flushed out loads of traders who agreeed with what he says

So if it is the "Yes Man" then ROFL excelent Prank!

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 29, 2011 by walker
grammar

[ProfTournesol 956]

Hi ProfTournesol

Actually there is no proof he is one of the " Yes Men " and the Yes Men deny he is one of theirs.

The story that he was fake was because of a facial similarity to the Yes Man who did the Dow chemical prank but this guy seems not to be the same and has a long record as a trader.

Also

You quoted me before i corrected myself, what i really meant is this :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8792829/BBC-financial-expert-Alessio-Rastani-Im-an-attention-seeker-not-a-trader.html

[walker 0]

You quoted me before i corrected myself, what i really meant is this :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8792829/BBC-financial-expert-Alessio-Rastani-Im-an-attention-seeker-not-a-trader.html

Ditto Rofl.

Forum tennis!

Kind Regards walker

[ProfTournesol 956]

Ditto Rofl.

Forum tennis!

Kind Regards walker

Indeed, you're damn fast :)

[walker 0]

Hi all

The truth is that it was likes of Goldman Sachs, and yes they were the biggest culprit, who created the mortgage and housing bubble in the US as the numorous court cases against them like that one show:

http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-fhfa-lawsuit-2011

They used the Millions gleened from the bush Tax cuts to create the Housing bubble that destroyed the US economy and left so many jobless and homeless.

The next great bubble is the Gold bubble with 100 times more shares in gold than actual gold exists! The Gold derivatives market are what inflated the price of gold stocks just like they did for the the US mortgage and property bubble.

Where there is the curious case of Andrew Maguire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Maguire_(whistleblower)

Now that is a story that must be a Prank but he gave evidense to the US senate and the attempt on his life was reported round the world. Curiously though not in the UK. NOT A WORD it is like there was a D Notice or some such.

Or maybe Murdoch's News Corp as it has form for this; the Daniel Morgan muder, of the private investigator who was found with an Axe through his head in Sydenham, after running an investigation in to the phone hacking by News Corp and its links to the Metropolitan Police.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/11/daniel-morgan-axe-murder-case-timeline

News Corp killed the story and put out fake stories to muddy the waters.

That one realy does read like a plot from spy novel!

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 29, 2011 by walker
Wrong link for Daniel Morgan Murder

[karensman08 10]

I'm confused... As I look at videos of the protests and read/listen to what protestors are saying, all I see is contradiction. It all looks like just a mass of out-of-control noise makers trying to disrupt the American society for nothing more than to create a colapse of our system.

I see union bosses organizing their people using them as peons and trying to incite bigger disturbances only to benefit their own personal agendas, and you mean to tell me that this is freedom? Besides, throughout history, was it not the worker or laborer that was always targeted to promote and fight for the communist's ideals?

Personally, I am very weary whenever I hear anything about labor unions. Why should any one person be so pressured to give money to a group just so they can hold a job? I understand that there are arguments for unions and some good things that they may have done. In fact, I think that they have played some rolls in the US history to bring the nation to where it is today; but let's not forget their violent means. Is the "by any means necessary" always a good thing? And if you believe it is, then I’ll remember that and let's ready the nukes for next Osama Bin Laden.

There really is no unified voice there that does anything for the true betterment (if that's a word) of the US. So why? Why succumb to this kind of propaganda? Isn’t that what these people complain about? Why have so many people simple forgotten what is right and what is wrong? Why do these people want to destroy a country that so many have given their own lives to come to just to see their children have a better life than them? Has our society become so spoiled that each person is so greedy and believes that everything needs to be provided to them by someone else? Do they truly believe that everything in this life is a right and nothing is a privilege? How is it that the person who works hard and is successful is demonized and the loiterer is placed on a pedestal for all to have pity?

[st_dux 26]

People can pay whatever they want, that doesn't change a thing. The price depends on supply and demand, but will find an equilibrium roughly corresponding to the value at perfect competition. The time it takes for society to produce something (and its sub-components) is in that case the factor behind the price.

Let's say it takes exactly the same amount of labor and time to create an unpopular toy as it does a popular one. Is their value not equal? And if it's equal, why does the price differ? Furthermore, what difference does the "real value" make if the use value defines the price?

Just like people win on lotteries some people actually turn into capitalists. But as your example shows, you don't get rich by working, you get rich by taking value other people created.

Saving your money for thirty years and buying a company with it isn't "taking value other people created." It's a smart use of money. Moreover, you don't need to buy a company to be rich. There are plenty of people who invest their money in things like housing and stocks that earn wealth without running a business themselves. Even a simple savings account can amount to a substantial sum over time if you make enough money in your job. Look at doctors, for example. They aren't business owners, but they have plenty of money.

Just like gambling doesn't create value, investments don't, only human labor does.

Of course investments create wealth. If a company invests in new machinery that allows them to create more products with less human labor, value is created. How is it not?

[Spokesperson 0]

Let's say it takes exactly the same amount of labor and time to create an unpopular toy as it does a popular one. Is their value not equal? And if it's equal, why does the price differ? Furthermore, what difference does the "real value" make if the use value defines the price?

As long as they both have use value their value is equal, and that's why the unpopular toy likely will go out of business. Price will be set by supply and demand as usual, but if you are forced to sell a toy under its value you will get bankrupt eventually.

The "real" value is important for the understanding, just like quarks are when it comes to atoms, or DNA to cells.

The use value doesn't define the price, it just says that the product fulfills some person's needs.

"Saving your money for thirty years and buying a company with it isn't "taking value other people created." It's a smart use of money. Moreover, you don't need to buy a company to be rich. There are plenty of people who invest their money in things like housing and stocks that earn wealth without running a business themselves. Even a simple savings account can amount to a substantial sum over time if you make enough money in your job. Look at doctors, for example. They aren't business owners, but they have plenty of money."

It all gets down to how you define rich, but yes you're right. Some people can get rich by chance, but the essence of this system is that not everyone can get rich even if they try to. Labor is not rewarded, ownership is.

"Of course investments create wealth. If a company invests in new machinery that allows them to create more products with less human labor, value is created. How is it not? "

No, that's the point. The less human labor the less the value will be. If you automatize something to the point where (almost) no labor is needed at all (someone still has to build the machines) the products produced will have little to no value and you will be unable to make profits of them, because others will end up having the same machinery. Cell phones took 30 mins to assemble earlier, today that process can be counted in seconds. The value of cell phones has decreased and so has their price.

It is not the investment that creates value, that's a unique property of human labor. You can invest as much as you want, but someone has to perfom the work. Sticks are not made into chairs through gambling.

You're asking the right questions and they are all answered in a more comprehensive way in the first chapters of Das Kapital. I think that would be of interest to you.

@karensman:

I have no words. Unions are one of the most important things there is. But it will just get too much to discuss that in this topic too. You should watch Matewan in any case:

See if this is something for you

"create a colapse of our system. "

Your/Our system is collapsing, and they aren't really causing it, they are highlighting the causes. They are trying to do something about it

[gammadust 12]

I'm confused... As I look at videos of the protests and read/listen to what protestors are saying, all I see is contradiction. It all looks like just a mass of out-of-control noise makers trying to disrupt the American society for nothing more than to create a colapse of our system.

Protest movements throughout History have always shown to be contradictory in their beginnings. As the movement matures what once was heterogeneous grows more and more homogeneous. It learns to bypass its inner differences for the sake of the bigger common objective (it boils down to the counter effect of "devide and conquer" method employed by rulers).

The fact that the ultimate synthesis of the movement is the "colapse of the system" is also common. The system as percieved by its elements is the reason its very existence is put to question. The reaction, as disorganized as it starts, eventually reaches a critical point (in number of members, and unity of the cause) that vows to destroy the system.

That system today is Capitalism, its symbolic existence lies in Wall Street.

I see union bosses organizing their people using them as peons and trying to incite bigger disturbances only to benefit their own personal agendas, and you mean to tell me that this is freedom? Besides, throughout history, was it not the worker or laborer that was always targeted to promote and fight for the communist's ideals?

So? They are firstly targeted by the system which exploits them. What is the problem in some people convinced of this reality, trying to organize themselves to grow themselves as a clear movement. The problems starts to become more dificult to deal with when infact, general working population's agend start to coincide with the union's agenda.

Personally, I am very weary whenever I hear anything about labor unions. Why should any one person be so pressured to give money to a group just so they can hold a job? I understand that there are arguments for unions and some good things that they may have done. In fact, I think that they have played some rolls in the US history to bring the nation to where it is today; but let's not forget their violent means. Is the "by any means necessary" always a good thing? And if you believe it is, then I’ll remember that and let's ready the nukes for next Osama Bin Laden.

The resort to violence is, as has been demonstrated in many instances, the only effective reaction possible in the given context. But it is also very observable that it comes only as a last resort. See Greece/Spain/Mahgreb Countries. While at the same time protesting populations keep themselves restricted to non-violence, rulling governements send police and horses. This helps build up to a violent stage, where there is no more restraint possible.

Governements collect what they sow by not letting their constituency solve their own problems peacefully and by democratic means, and by breaking the democratic contract in the first place. They are also many times more violent then protesters, the System is actualy!

There really is no unified voice there that does anything for the true betterment (if that's a word) of the US. So why? Why succumb to this kind of propaganda? Isn’t that what these people complain about? Why have so many people simple forgotten what is right and what is wrong? Why do these people want to destroy a country that so many have given their own lives to come to just to see their children have a better life than them? Has our society become so spoiled that each person is so greedy and believes that everything needs to be provided to them by someone else? Do they truly believe that everything in this life is a right and nothing is a privilege? How is it that the person who works hard and is successful is demonized and the loiterer is placed on a pedestal for all to have pity?

1 - Woudn't you wonder where the propaganda really comes from. Who indeed has the propaganda means? Are you comparing a webpage and its activists' propaganda as the most pervasive one?

2 -Because those protesting are precisely society's sons and daugters which are unable to simply fulfil basic necessities in life. Society for them has failed. So they try to change it.

3 - For one to provide his own, one needs a reasonably paid job. Unemployment is growing due to the way the system evolves. Governements to the opposite of which is necessary to curb the issue, they actually exacerbate it instead. People get desperate they resort to destroying what once had given them hope and is destroying them instead.

4 - Because far in too many instances the one which achieves success is not simply hardworking, represents a cog in the system that exploits the unsucessful one, the "loiterer" more and more ceased to be just a loiterer, many are assuming the role unwillingly, and the society values which once made the distinction between the two are waning.

[st_dux 26]

@Spokesperson:

I'm really enjoying this conversation although I realize that we may be drifting off-topic at this point. I'll continue here for now but if you or the mods feel that it's derailing the thread we can take it to PM.

No, that's the point. The less human labor the less the value will be.

So I suppose the opposite must also be true then, correct? That is to say, the more human labor involved the greater the value will be. In that case, wouldn't our best course of action be to abolish as much technology as possible? If we went back to the Stone Age -- or better yet, stopped using tools altogether -- we could make it so that things that are easy to produce today are almost impossible to produce tomorrow. That would mean that much more labor would be required, and thus, our net value would rise dramatically. Is that right?

[Spokesperson 0]

So I suppose the opposite must also be true then, correct? That is to say, the more human labor involved the greater the value will be.

That's correct. Value is however determined by society as a whole. So if it takes one person a day to create a chair it won't be more valuable than one produced by another person in half a day. The value is defined as an average value taken over all of society. A less skilled worker will be poorer, because he's inefficient.

In that case, wouldn't our best course of action be to abolish as much technology as possible? If we went back to the Stone Age -- or better yet, stopped using tools altogether -- we could make it so that things that are easy to produce today are almost impossible to produce tomorrow. That would mean that much more labor would be required, and thus, our net value would rise dramatically. Is that right?

Yes, if you abolished all tools and technology (not that it is possible or even realistic because it's more or less an irreversible process) the labor required for society to create a computer from scratch would be greater and thus its value would be higher. You want to reduce the labor it takes for you to create a product to be able to offer lower prices to sell your products at. And the competitors don't want to be lacking behind. Technology reduces the value of products, but at the same time it also undermines capitalism itself, because there will be a point where you have less and less employees and higher unemployment, i.e. less purchasing power.

Having less laborers also means that there are less profits, because profits are generated by buying labor power at a price lower than the value it creates.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Spokesperson