When you get back to the original contributions, one in capital and one in labor, you find that the capitalist has a choice. He can contribute as a loan or an investement. The laboror really has no choice, his input is considered immediate and transitory no matter how much he must redirect his future to actually contribute well.
Okay, scrap the example. I understand how examples can be distracting.
A capitalist offers capital and expects a reward for that in the form of appreciated capital. The laborer offers labor and expects a reward in the form of a paycheck. If the rewards are equal, as you asserted in your silverfish example, then each would end up with the same value for his contribution. Each has to use some of that value to live on. The laborer cashes his paycheck to buy groceries. The capitalist has to convert some of his appreciate asset to buy groceries. Then, each can take whatever is left over, if any, to invest for the future. I see no significant difference between the two. They are being compensated equally. Thus, I still don't see any unfairness.
As for the choice of how to earn the reward, I don't see where one has more than the other. Choosing between loaning the money or investing it doesn't matter in any way I can see. Lending money is a form of investment. Either way he's putting up money to make money. The laborer can do different sorts of labor. If anything, he has more choice. If the job at the supermarket doesn't work out, he can try package delivery and, if that doesn't work out, he can drive a bus. |
