|
Effectronica posted:No, he was lucky, because according to you, his investment strategy of studying companies and buying ones that had good reasons to continue growing is meaningless, because it relies on the assumption that there are objective components to value. No, it relies on him thinking (correctly) that the companies he invested in would increase in stock price more than the market as a whole. You still don't seem to get this distinction. Effectronica posted:Not to mention that orthodox economics is still heavily monetarist once you look at policymakers. Is that an acknowledgement that Orthodox Economics is actually right, even if policymakers are wrong? It sure sounds like it to me. Aeolius posted:Eh, give it up. He is right. He has owned us hard with the observation that market price is not the same thing as embodied socially necessary labor time, a thing Marx most certainly never thought of or even also took great care to point out himself. And SNLT definitely could not have an analytical role outside of price determination, because reasons. Lol look at those goalposts move
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Lol look at those goalposts move but pray tell me, in your own words, where you thought they were relative to where they are now. maybe i can trick you into actually fielding productive discourse this way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:49
|
|
icantfindaname posted:No, it relies on him thinking (correctly) that the companies he invested in would increase in stock price more than the market as a whole. You still don't seem to get this distinction. His belief that those stocks would rise in price is because he believes that the price is partially dependent on what the company does. This is antithetical to your belief, but you're ignoring it, because it goes against your fundamental belief that con artistry is a victimless crime. You sleaze. The orthodoxy still holds that monetary policy is the instrument of first resort and fiscal policy is tertiary. You need to look at how things are actually applied, rather than the fact that the freshwater school is less prominent in journals.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:But you have exerted control over your capital, and decided that it would be more productively employed by some corporation that it would sitting idle, or earning interest. No, when I buy stock it's not employed by some corporation. The money doesn't go to the corporation. You know that, right? quote:When you do this, the effect is minuscule. When warren buffet does this, the effect is not. (Also if you're not investing in a mutual fund I really question your financial strategy) Absolutely. Some capitalists do exert control, either directly or through influence. But Warren Buffets are rare. And in Buffet's case, he actually invests in companies he thinks have very sound fundamentals, rather than watching them quarter to quarter. He doesn't actually exert a lot of influence over what companies do. quote:The value of objects is determined by people. A BLT will have a different value in Tehran than Toledo. When people trade, we know that the seller thinks the value, to him, of the item is less than he received in trade, and the buyer thinks that it is worth more, to her, than what she gave in trade. Nobody cares how much labor went into your BLT in Tehran because they're not eating that poo poo. Yes, market valuation is one way to determine the value of something. The example you gave is exactly why market value is only part of the description of value. The sandwich exists as a certain amount of nutrition and calories; it has an actual existence to it, that we could in some way measure the value of. Those gold-plated monster audio cables weren't actually worth the money people paid for them. A new car is worth a certain amount, the minute you buy it it's worth less. The car is actually 'worth' a various amount of money depending on how good you are at haggling when you buy it. You can get two different people to pay two different prices for the same thing, so what is that thing's value? Etc. This isn't saying market value doesn't have use, it does, but it is not an object, absolute, or the only way of valuing things, you have to be able to value things other than by market valuation, if only to talk about market valuation. quote:As long as they're channeling resources towards stuff that's more profitable than random assignment, they're doing work. If other methods of assigning capital to productive uses are more efficient, we should be able to prove that empirically. But some of them are channeling resources to stuff that's less profitable than random assignment, right? And you can empirically show that, in some areas, assigning capital through another means is more efficient. Our completely hosed health insurance system, for example. It would be a lot better if we had single-payer insurance. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The orthodoxy still holds that monetary policy is the instrument of first resort and fiscal policy is tertiary. You need to look at how things are actually applied, rather than the fact that the freshwater school is less prominent in journals. The IMF came out with a report recently admitting its error in supporting austerity in Europe in 2010. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/international-mensch-fund/ Also, let's apply that standard to Marxism. You've got to look at how it's been actually applied, man!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:56
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The IMF came out with a report recently admitting its error in supporting austerity in Europe in 2010. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/international-mensch-fund/ Yeah, let's apply that and consign Marxism-Leninism to the trash heap with Maoism, but without pretending that those are the only Marxist or socialist approaches. I'm fine with that, not being an adherent to either of those ideologies. Communism works pretty great within companies though!
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:asdf32, do you really think that the CEO of a company is chosen by the shareholders collectively rather than a small group of professionals within the shareholders and the senior management of the company? Because your view seems inconsistent with how large businesses operate. The people who chose management are owners or their representatives. Thus owners choose management. Besides just pointing out this chain of control, I'm also citing results (companies seek profit). Maybe you'll agree that if CEO's could just collect a paycheck for literally doing nothing they would do so. The fact that they direct their company to seek profit (which goes to the owners) is because owners are managing them (yeah they often own shares too, in that case it's a combination). Value: Value is legitimately complicated and I think it's often best avoided in these types of discussions. Nothing, including the market, perfectly indicates value. For example the market value of a good is always less than it's worth to any customer (the customers earns a consumer surplus). The amount paid for labor is always less than what it's worth to a company (the company earns a surplus - "profit"). Both of these things help indicate the value, but none equals it exactly. Part of the problem is that value for any particular good is different for everyone. No intrinsic measure exists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Value: You think value should be avoided in talking about economics. Okay then, have fun with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Yeah, let's apply that and consign Marxism-Leninism to the trash heap with Maoism, but without pretending that those are the only Marxist or socialist approaches. I'm fine with that, not being an adherent to either of those ideologies. Communism works pretty great within companies though! This thread spent a considerable time defending both Leninism and Maoism, as is wont to happen whenever these threads appear, so I think it's kind of funny that now they're getting consigned to the trash heap. Off topic, of course, but still
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:This thread spent a considerable time defending both Leninism and Maoism, as is wont to happen whenever these threads appear, so I think it's kind of funny that now they're getting consigned to the trash heap. Off topic, of course, but still This thread didn't spend considerable time defending both Leninism and Maoism. Have you noticed you tend to lie a lot, like when you made up a quote I hadn't said? Why do you do that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:Don't let it get to you. Years of discussion and thousands upon thousands of words spent painstakingly explaining concepts, and asdf32 still can't even coherently restate the most basic Marxist positions. The "bot" theory isn't unfounded. Here you go HorseLord posted:The CPRF (CPSU with a new name to get around the ban) still aren't exactly progressive about gays. I'd pin that on it being literally russia though, it's no big surprise a society with a huge homophobia problem produces a communist party that reflects this. Maybe It'll change after Zyuganov dies. I know in the wider communist movement it's overflowing with LGBT people, Huey Newton did tell homophobes to shut the gently caress up decades ago, after all. I'll even throw in some defending the current Russian Communist Party
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:08
|
|
sure, but whereas imperialism here refers specifically to the highest stage of capitalism, your set of alternatives is pretty slim. Would you prefer feudalism? A classical slave society? Perhaps primitive communalism?
icantfindaname posted:This thread spent a considerable time defending both Leninism and Maoism, as is wont to happen whenever these threads appear, so I think it's kind of funny that now they're getting consigned to the trash heap. Off topic, of course, but still Well, first of all, you're assuming everyone that's not you exists as part of a hive intelligence, which to me suggests you need emergency antipsychotics, but whatever. Second of all, defending something doesn't entail wanting it to be in place. If someone said that feudalism was just an elaborate excuse to rape peasants non-stop, I would be defending it if I said that wasn't the case, but I don't think that means I want it to return, either!
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Here you go What do you think you're showing in that first quote? And yes, Horselord is nutty. You two ought to make a thread together, you're well suited for each other. You still didn't explain why you lied about me saying something, though. Are you going to address that at any point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What do you think you're showing in that first quote? Nothing I have said ITT has been a lie. Not that post. It's true, this thread has spent considerable time defending both Leninism and Maoism. Your argument style seems to be to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying, full stop
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Yeah, let's apply that and consign Marxism-Leninism to the trash heap with Maoism, but without pretending that those are the only Marxist or socialist approaches. I'm fine with that, not being an adherent to either of those ideologies. Communism works pretty great within companies though! So when politicians try to implement Marxism and gently caress it up, that's not really Marxism. But when politicians try to implement neo-keynesianism and gently caress it up well that's all we can really look at when evaluating it am i rite? Obdicut posted:No, when I buy stock it's not employed by some corporation. The money doesn't go to the corporation. You know that, right? quote:And you can empirically show that, in some areas, assigning capital through another means is more efficient. Our completely hosed health insurance system, for example. It would be a lot better if we had single-payer insurance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, when I buy stock it's not employed by some corporation. The money doesn't go to the corporation. You know that, right? This is one of those things you keep repeating that's completely wrong. Yeah it's a big ocean and if you pour a glass of water into it you're not actually going to observe it rising. But that's the effect it has regardless and we know it. You keep hiding behind complexity or scale here in a disingenuous way. To be clearer are you categorically denying that buying/selling stock is a potentially productive capital allocation activity? quote:Absolutely. Some capitalists do exert control, either directly or through influence. But Warren Buffets are rare. And in Buffet's case, he actually invests in companies he thinks have very sound fundamentals, rather than watching them quarter to quarter. He doesn't actually exert a lot of influence over what companies do. I love when people come into a value discussion and just start declaring values for things. Got it - audio cables are bad. That's great you think that (I agree but it doesn't matter). quote:But some of them are channeling resources to stuff that's less profitable than random assignment, right? Yeah, like I mentioned earlier, similar to laborers, some captialists are bad at what they do. Further sometimes capitalist incentive structures don't line up with actual value for society. This isn't novel. Socialism (theoretically) relies heavily on democracy - getting votes doesn't always line up with providing actual value either. Every system has a certain amount of "error". asdf32 fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:16
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Nothing I have said ITT has been a lie. Not that post. It's true, this thread has spent considerable time defending both Leninism and Maoism. Your argument style seems to be to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying, full stop True, you weren't lying when you said that you believed the only alternative to the ballot box was mass murder, or when you demanded that people defend things that other people said.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:16
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So when politicians try to implement Marxism and gently caress it up, that's not really Marxism. But when politicians try to implement neo-keynesianism and gently caress it up well that's all we can really look at when evaluating it am i rite? You just lied about what I said. Do you do that in person, or is it reserved for the internet?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Nothing I have said ITT has been a lie. You've edited the post to remeove it, but you said: quote:Okay so we have you down as "no capitalist ever makes decisions regarding how his capital is used". Not only did I never say that quote, which is a lie in itself, I never said anything remotely like that. It is possible, since you still think I'm a Marxist, that you just have something wrong in the old thinking machine, and you actually think you're being honest and upright by saying that. If it's not a lie, then quote me saying anything that equates to "no capitalist ever makes decisions regarding how his capital is used". You can't, because I didn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:True, you weren't lying when you said that you believed the only alternative to the ballot box was mass murder I'm confused, are you implying there are alternatives to the ballot box, IE you don't think democracy is unambiguously the best system?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:19
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I'm confused, are you implying there are alternatives to the ballot box, IE you don't think democracy is unambiguously the best system? See, now you're playing the omission game, and now I feel bad about not pointing out how your rejection of Marxism-Leninism as pure evil necessarily means supporting the Nazi plans to slaughter two-thirds of Russia and reduce the remaining third to chattel slavery. But hey, now you're doing a lovely gotcha, but it's one that implies you support murdering protesters and strikers. Are you sure you're a liberal? Edit: I figured you'd reply to Obdicut while I was writing this, but I see you're engaging in good ol' Stalinist-style historical revisionism! "Concealment of the historical truth is a crime against the people"- Gen. Pyotr Grigorenko, samizdat letter to historical journal. Effectronica fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You've edited the post to remeove it, but you said: icantfindaname posted:Okay so we have you down as "no capitalist ever makes decisions regarding how his capital is used". If you speak and understand English you will notice this statement is invalidated by even one case of a capitalist involved in the management of his capital. This is the kind of statement you've made over and over and over again, only to turn around and say "lol that's not what i meant at all look ay how dumb you are". Hence the "pathologically dishonest or trolling". Forgive me for assuming that literally nothing you say actually lines up with any exact intended meaning, because that's how it's been the whole thread. I guess the third option is that you literally have no idea what you're talking about and hinestly cannot even conceive that you're wrong on anything, but I do want to assume you're intelligent and it's worth participating in this discussion I edited this post to remove the bolded? Doesn't seem like it to me. Effectronica posted:See, now you're playing the omission game, and now I feel bad about not pointing out how your rejection of Marxism-Leninism as pure evil necessarily means supporting the Nazi plans to slaughter two-thirds of Russia and reduce the remaining third to chattel slavery. I am a big fan of a dude named Alexander Kerensky, I'm sorry you're not
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I edited this post to remove the bolded? Doesn't seem like it to me. My apologies, my eyes just skipped right over it. you're completely right, that sentence is still there. Now: Not only did I never say that quote, which is a lie in itself, I never said anything remotely like that. It is possible, since you still think I'm a Marxist, that you just have something wrong in the old thinking machine, and you actually think you're being honest and upright by saying that. If it's not a lie, then quote me saying anything that equates to "no capitalist ever makes decisions regarding how his capital is used". You can't, because I didn't. Are you just going to keep dodging this? It makes you look pretty pathetic. asdf32 posted:This is one of those things you keep repeating that's completely wrong. Yeah it's a big ocean and if you pour a glass of water into it you're not actually going to observe it rising. But that's the effect it has regardless and we know it. You keep hiding behind complexity or scale here in a disingenuous way. No, for gently caress's sake, I'm saying that when you invest money in a company to start it up, that is very different from buying stock in an established company. In the first case, the company has more money after it. In the latter case, the company does not. Even your "Well, they could raise more stock if their price goes up" falls completely flat because buying stock in a company can cause the stock price to go down, too, because buying stock in a company also involves someone selling stock in a company. So the most you can say is that when someone buys stock in a company for a price higher than the market, then the company may be able to use that to float more credit, which may or may not actually be good for it. Yay. Which also has almost no meaning in what we were talking about : actual business decisions at the company.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This thread didn't spend considerable time defending both Leninism and Maoism. In fairness, I'm probably one of like two or three people around these parts who'll defend planned economies. I don't expect I'll convince many others, given the visceral reactions that sprout from being raised by the Cold War generation. It is what it is, though; it's a position to which I've only recently become open, myself. That said, I'd be happy to enter into a dialogue about it with anyone who's demonstrated they're not allergic to "laying down common terms" or other basic intellectual honesty stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Aeolius posted:In fairness, I'm probably one of like two or three people around these parts who'll defend planned economies. I don't expect I'll convince many others, given the visceral reactions that sprout from being raised by the Cold War generation. It is what it is, though; it's a position to which I've only recently become open, myself. That said, I'd be happy to enter into a dialogue about it with anyone who's demonstrated they're not allergic to "laying down common terms" or other basic intellectual honesty stuff. I'll defend planned economies in some circumstances, but not Maosim or Leninism. A lot of our economy is planned, thank god, we'd be super-hosed if it wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:26
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I am a big fan of a dude named Alexander Kerensky, I'm sorry you're not You're historically ignorant. If Kerensky had had any real base for support, the Russian Civil War would not have been between communists/anarchists and monarchists solely. The lack of any liberal factions makes it clear that he never, ever had a chance. At least idolize Nestor Makhno or someone else with popular support. And it was Stalinist brutality that allowed the USSR to resist the Nazi invasion. Aeolius posted:In fairness, I'm probably one of like two or three people around these parts who'll defend planned economies. I don't expect I'll convince many others, given the visceral reactions that sprout from being raised by the Cold War generation. It is what it is, though; it's a position to which I've only recently become open, myself. That said, I'd be happy to enter into a dialogue about it with anyone who's demonstrated they're not allergic to "laying down common terms" or other basic intellectual honesty stuff. How do you deal with the problem of requisite variety?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:My apologies, my eyes just skipped right over it. you're completely right, that sentence is still there. Okay, you're right, you only said Obdicut posted:No, again, that is not the role of the capitalist. That might be the role of a CEO, or a manager, or the Chairman of the board, but the mere act of investing does not influence--as I pointed out, investment normally isn't at the start of a company, it's just buying stock. you're treating 'investment' as though it is always starting off a company. Furthermore, even when someone does savvily invest in a business with a lot of foresight, very quickly the initial investment doesn't matter, the revenue stream of the company takes over. I'm sorry for the misrepresentation. However, the drive of this argument, that capitalists perform no socially useful role, is incorrect
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Okay, you're right, you only said And that is nothing, nothing at all like what you said. Nothing. Not a drat thing. quote:I'm sorry for the misrepresentation. However, the drive of this argument, that capitalists perform no socially useful role, is incorrect Also, not something I said. That isn't the drive of the argument. Do you think that it is possible that you actually haven't understood the arguments that have been made to you, due to your tendency to flip the gently caress out and flail around angrily?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:And that is nothing, nothing at all like what you said. Nothing. Not a drat thing. Obdicut posted:First of all, if you labor to decide what to invest in, that doesn't actually contribute to the productive work at all. Your example would work a lot better if you talked not about investing capital but in making active business decisions, getting deals, etc. The act of investing doesn't actually affect the productive process except to make it possible or not. That's pretty strange, because here you literally say capitalists don't contribute to productive work at all
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:33
|
|
icantfindaname posted:That's pretty strange, because here you literally say capitalists don't contribute to productive work at all You stupid poo poo, you wrote an ungodly number of words, in the double digits, about precision of language and then fail to grasp when someone is talking about the actual process of production? He says right in the paragraph you quoted that investment is what makes production possible, which is a social function. Jesus.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You stupid poo poo, you wrote an ungodly number of words, in the double digits, about precision of language and then fail to grasp when someone is talking about the actual process of production? He says right in the paragraph you quoted that investment is what makes production possible, which is a social function. Jesus. So he direcly contradicted himself in the span of a sibgle paragraph? So you think he'a stupid?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:That's pretty strange, because here you literally say capitalists don't contribute to productive work at all Yes, the labor to decide what to invest in doesn't contribute to productive work. Do you understand that is different than "capitalists perform no socially useful role"? You seem to have this weird way of conflating ideas that have really very little to do with each other. Capitalists invest capital. That is 'socially useful', as in, it has to happen or we're hosed. You have to have people who put resources back to work, or you get stagnation. But they don't have to be capitalists, and the decision of where to invest doesn't contribute to productive work. It enables it--though it also enables wasteful work, and destructive work, too. Or, put more directly, what Effectronica said. quote:So you think he'a stupid? I think he'a stupid! Those things are not contradictory. This is what I mean when I ask you if you think it's possible you're not understanding what people are saying. Seriously, is there any chance, do you think, that you're actually misapprehending what's being said?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:42
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So he direcly contradicted himself in the span of a sibgle paragraph? So you think he'a stupid? Yes, you're starting to break down and degenerate. Finally. But no, he didn't contradict himself. EDIT: Put it to you this way- if capitalists were necessary for the process of production, human history must be a lie, because capitalists only were present in small segments of the economy before the 1600s in Europe, and later in much of the rest of the world. The social function fulfilled by capitalists today was largely performed by guilds and the state itself in feudal Europe, as a quick example. Effectronica fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You stupid poo poo, you wrote an ungodly number of words, in the double digits, about precision of language and then fail to grasp when someone is talking about the actual process of production? He says right in the paragraph you quoted that investment is what makes production possible, which is a social function. Jesus. mang cut icfan some slack, their doing they're best and there just slow
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes, the labor to decide what to invest in doesn't contribute to productive work. Because different investments have different rates of return, simply providing capital/money does not in fact produce returns. If I light hundred dollar bills on fire I've provided capital, but there will be no return on that investment. Therefore the decision of what to invest in is a major component of the returns. This is basic economic theory and the fact you still refuse to acknowledge this is  You seem to think economic growth happens at random by spending money on random things, because if capitalists aren't making beneficial decisions of what to invest in then that's the only apparant alternative
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Because different investments have different rates of return, simply providing capital/money does not in fact produce returns. What the hell are you talking about? What does this have to do with what I said? quote:If I light hundred dollar bills on fire I've provided capital, but there will be no return on that investment. Therefore the decision of what to invest in is a major component of the returns. This is basic economic theorh and the fact you still refuse to acknowledge this is You really, really don't understand what I'm saying. I promise you, you actually don't understand it. I don't know any other way or any polite way to say it, man, you're just not actually following the argument and it makes me embarassed on your behalf.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:And that is nothing, nothing at all like what you said. Nothing. Not a drat thing. Obdicut that implication follows from exploitation. In all seriousness you've struggled to understand arguments this entire thread. Don't get me wrong, you know marx reasonably well. But you don't get the actual implications of what he says in terms of an actual economy, despite being able to repeat it. Arguments being made here aren't exactly cutting edge, yet you don't seem to grasp where they're even coming from and half your posts involve some variation of "what are you saying" or "but why would you ask this?". After a while it's telling. Look at the exploitation debate from earlier, you literally though that the arithmetic mattered, that we didn't understand the definition and repeated it several times - no one questioned the marxist definition of exploitation - we were challenging you on why it matters. The thing that follows from exploitation, the thing that jefferson called you out on earlier (which you responded to in typical "where is this coming from?" fashion) is that if exploitation (Marxist definition) is exploitation (dictionary definition) then owners don't provide value. If owners provide value then profit isn't necessarily exploitation (dictionary definition). You literally don't seem to understand how these things connect and I'm still not sure you understand why I just had to specify the two different definitions. Among many other stranded responses, this was something icantfindaname called you out on earlier: Obdicut posted:No, you can have varying amounts of capital and not have it be 'exploitative'. icantfindaname posted:What's a situation where a capital-rich and a capital-poor country trade that you wouldn't call exploitation? Obdicut posted:There isn't one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
You've asserted multiple times that capitalists don't do useful labor. Unless you mean something completely different from what you've written I'm not misunderstanding anything. I'm sorry you can't seem to figure out how to express yourself clearly, I guess? Or that you're so utterly convinced you're right that pointing out massive contradictions within single paragraphs of your arguments only makes you think other people just don't understand what you're saying
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:56
|
|
icantfindaname posted:You've asserted multiple times that capitalists don't do useful labor. Unless you mean something completely different from what you've written I'm not misunderstanding anything. I'm sorry you can't seem to figure out how to express yourself clearly, I guess? You just wrote that you need an investor to be able to grow corn, so you really don't have much room to maneuver.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:You just wrote that you need an investor to be able to grow corn, so you really don't have much room to maneuver. Yup. You do. Someone needs to provide the land, equipment, and seedcorn. That person may be a landlord, a capitalist producer, or the farmer themselves. But the point is someone has to decide to invest those factors into production. How will production happen otherwise? I don't think this is the great gotcha moment you seem to think it is icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Nov 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2014 04:59
|
|