|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Sure the bank foreclosed on your house and now you and your family live out the back of a station wagon, but think of their portfolios! Careful pete that dick you're jerkin there is gonna vote for a fascist
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:07 |
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Yeah no poo poo, the profit has to be generated by increasing the rate of exploitation, which means a massive transfer of wealth from workers to capitalists. That eventually leads to *drum roll* REVOLUTION! Or the same rate of exploitation and profit with no revolution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
isn't piketty liberal gospel now, even liberals are supposed to be on board with capital sucking up money faster than workers
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Or the same rate of exploitation and profit with no revolution. lol what makes you think that is tenable forever? a police state?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:Careful pete that dick you're jerkin there is gonna vote for a fascist Only a Fascist would think the banks did anything wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_foreclosure_crisis asdf32 posted:Or the same rate of exploitation and profit with no revolution. lmao - so profit is just generated magically, not by increased productivity adding value (growth), or by reducing wages and salaries to extract greater value from stagnant productivty (exploitation). Basically, zero growth doesn't mean zero profit for a select group of essential firms, while causing widespread institutional failure for everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Only a Fascist would think the banks did anything wrong. ok not getting the sense that you actually know what profit is so here's a quick fyi 4 u revenue - costs = profit sorry if this is a little to mathy for u i can draw some helpful pictures in mspaint using apples as a metaphor if u think it will help
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:isn't piketty liberal gospel now, even liberals are supposed to be on board with capital sucking up money faster than workers He thinks Marx is worthless and the solution to inequality is taxes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:ok not getting the sense that you actually know what profit is so here's a quick fyi 4 u Ok now try this math problem Value of workers' labor - wage earned from labor = profit What's wrong with this picture?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Only a Fascist would think the banks did anything wrong. Heh it doesn't take any more magic to sustainably pay profit (money) to owners (people) than it does to pay wages (money) to janitors (other people). Apparently you think profit is special? It isn't. Socialism has it and pays it to owners too. You're not getting the marxism right either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Guy, who decides how to divide the revenue, that everyone made in that workplace. Everyone involved, or the private owner? Now this theoretical workplace is embedded in a community, right? Who or what are the private owners responsible for? Their own private interest and market forces? So a gigantic socio-economic part of our lives, the workplace in our neighborhood, is completely unaccountable and undemocratic to 99% of the people who work and live there. Yet this workplace, and the revenue is the result of everyone involved, and only a few unaccountable people decide how to split the surplus. Do you think this creates a problem, like say, I don't know, an antagonistic class relation? Deimus fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Not only do the champions of Capital not understand capitalism, but they don't understand finance or even basic math.Constant Hamprince posted:ok not getting the sense that you actually know what profit is so here's a quick fyi 4 u Yes, and labor is the most important cost of production, because laborers are the people who create value. You can indeed cut costs in other factors of production, but that still represents a multiplier to the productivity of your labor - and they're also problematic in their own ways. You could for instance, lobby to reduce the property taxes on the land that your business is based on, or lobby to reduce the corporate and payroll taxes you have to pay out - that would be taking from the commons to guarantee your profitability. You could also cut costs to your inputs, like the raw materials that you import from the third world or the assembled parts that you import from developing countries like China, Vietnam, and Mexico. At some point along that supply chain, a worker is being exploited because their labor was way cheaper to pay than a laborer in your country of operations. These costs could also be reduced through technological advances, but those technologies were developed and produced in mass by laborers to start with, and they represent a growth of value being pumped into the system. Keep in mind, that the whole point of this exercise was to speculate on a situation where Capitalism is no longer capable of guaranteeing a growth of value. asdf32 posted:Heh it doesn't take any more magic to sustainably pay profit (money) to owners (people) than it does to pay wages (money) to janitors (other people). Apparently you think profit is special? It isn't. Socialism has it and pays it to owners too. You're not getting the marxism right either. In socialism the workers are the owners, and profits are paid out as dividends to society through the commons. This is extremely basic stuff. It's magical to assume that you can sustainably pay the same rate of profit to owners, and wages to employers, in a system that necessitates constant growth like capitalism. We don't live in a perfectly open system, because we're confined to one planet and all the resources that it can provide. Resources which are inevitably exhausted according to capitalist logic. You can't grow forever within a closed system. Eventually you reach a point of implosion. Pener Kropoopkin fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Except capitalism doesn't need to keep growing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Except capitalism doesn't need to keep growing. There are dozens of historical examples demonstrating why it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_crises All of these crises in capitalist market places could only be overcome by entering into new periods of growth to recover from recession. A recession that lasts indefinitely is catastrophic to the continued functioning of capitalism as a system. If capitalists can't continue accumulating capital, then what do you think they're going to do with all of the property they control? How do you think they'd behave? They'll earn income from their properties by extracting rent for its use, which is more like feudalism than capitalism. Capitalism relies on a capitalist class which is capable of investing capital into projects which grow in value, and allow for reinvestment into other profitable projects. If the system can't grow then capital can no longer be accumulated, and you're not looking at a capitalist society any more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
so aside from the usual warning about communicating with asdf32 — e.g., has not made an intelligent post since at least may 14, 2010 — peeps should be aware that he's explicitly stated on several occasions (once in this very thread) that his engagement is predicated on the belief that socialist ideology is a pathological condition that he hopes to "figur[e] out how to prevent" in other words, he's basically taken up the mantle of Forums Antonio Vallejo-Nájera. over the years his quest to rain smug, dishonest incomprehension upon every thread with even a flicker of red to it has gone from annoying to downright creepy
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:There are dozens of historical examples demonstrating why it does. I have no idea what your definition of "growth" is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:I have no idea what your definition of "growth" is. https://vimeo.com/165363730
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Granted, anything that cannot go on forever will eventually stop. Resource consumption cannot continue growing at an exponential rate indefinitely. We don't know what the least upper bound is, but there definitely exists an upper bound. Yet what this has to do with the prospects for socialism in our lifetimes, or even our children's lifetimes, I cannot tell. e: Please stop sharing your favorite fetish videos, this is a serious thread for serious discussion of a serious political party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:There are dozens of historical examples demonstrating why it does. Crisis in this context is literally defined as negative growth. If society decides that's what it wants it will no longer classify it as a crisis. Life didn't stop in Japan's lost decade. It was capitalism and it wasn't growth and it wasn't a crisis. quote:Capitalism relies on a capitalist class which is capable of investing capital into projects which grow in value, and allow for reinvestment into other profitable projects. If the system can't grow then capital can no longer be accumulated, and you're not looking at a capitalist society any more. And this equally describes a socialist economy if you change the names of the actors. Neither shuts down if they encounter some losses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
I've met libertarians less dense than you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:There are dozens of historical examples demonstrating why it does. you could also conclude from these data points that capitalism is a robust system capable of recovering from crises without collapsing or morphing into a fundamentally different system. quote:A recession that lasts indefinitely is catastrophic to the continued functioning of capitalism as a system. If capitalists can't continue accumulating capital, then what do you think they're going to do with all of the property they control? How do you think they'd behave? They'll earn income from their properties by extracting rent for its use, which is more like feudalism than capitalism. Capitalism relies on a capitalist class which is capable of investing capital into projects which grow in value, and allow for reinvestment into other profitable projects. If the system can't grow then capital can no longer be accumulated, and you're not looking at a capitalist society any more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Actually, the 1930s were good
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:you could also conclude from these data points that capitalism is a robust system capable of recovering from crises without collapsing or morphing into a fundamentally different system. The capitalists will fire a lot of people, cut a lot of wages and still make a poo poo ton of money. E:literally the 1930s
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:And this equally describes a socialist economy if you change the names of the actors. Neither shuts down if they encounter some losses. Not even close. Not at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Not even close. Not at all. Pener Kropoopkin posted:investing capital into projects which grow in value, and allow for reinvestment into other profitable projects Heh which part doesn't apply to socialism? Hopefully not the 'grow in value' part. The Kingfish posted:The capitalists will fire a lot of people, cut a lot of wages and still make a poo poo ton of money. Profits went down, rents went down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Baffling
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
If there's bound to be a revolution when capitalism exhausts itself by reaching the limits of its exponential growth, why not just chill out until then and enjoy our iPhones? It's cool, guys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
strange how the anticoms in this thread are continually baffled by the most basic concepts like "capitalism" and "growth" or "the accumulation of capital forms the basis of capitalism" makes you wonder if they're all gigantic dumbasses...
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:If there's bound to be a revolution when capitalism exhausts itself by reaching the limits of its exponential growth, why not just chill out until then and enjoy our iPhones? It's cool, guys. because, unfortunately, we aren't guaranteed to win the revolution. instead, there could be a world war to wipe out all the excess capacity, like a hundred years ago. Of course in the wake of the First World War was some of the greatest victories for the forces of human progress. on the other hand we have nuclear weapons now so ymmv
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Profits went down, rents went down. ??? What's your point
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Profits went down, rents went down. how does lower rent help an unemployed person with no money i don't understand what you're arguing
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:
Most people think Bernie is 'radical left wing.' They just have no clue. America's labor history has been something to really be proud of, if people actually read about it. And that history is littered with militant socialists. And communists organizing militant unions. Hell, even the republican party in Lincoln's time considered wages as another form of economic slavery. McCarthyism is still alive and it made people really, really stupid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:??? What's your point A couple. First, if your "still make a poo poo ton money (but less than last year)" is suddenly fine for capitalists then it's a sustainable system. Second, when faced with declining profits in the depression capitalists didn't magically raise rents to make it up like our friend Pener Kropoopkin said the just-so story which lead to the post you responded too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The capitalists will fire a lot of people, cut a lot of wages and still make a poo poo ton of money. No that doesn't make sense at all. If they could make more money by firing a lot of people, they'd be doing it right now. Do you think the great depression was a global capitalist conspiracy to fire a bunch of people? The economy crashed because it was run by morons, not on purpose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
For fucks sake. We've been giving liberals a business school 101 lesson for 10 loving pages already. This is just embarrassing and not interesting
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Deimus posted:For fucks sake. i do this all the loving time in b-school we're going over peter thiel's Zero to One and not a single one of the people presenting on the book recognized that when he says "monopolies are good" he means "[for that specific business]". it's also peter thiel though so you never know one of them argued back with me with "inherent conflict? but private monopolies will have the incentive to innovate because they know they'll be rewarded for their work!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Deimus posted:For fucks sake. welcome to something awful u: today we're having lectures on how businesses become profitable from people who believe capitalism is inherently dehumanizing and unsustainable tomorrow, a special symposium on plate tectonics presented by a panel of young earth creationists. and don't forget to pop in monday for a quick refresher on islamic theology from r/trump poster dogballs69
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 04:48
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Do you think the great depression was a global capitalist conspiracy to fire a bunch of people? no. glad we could clear up at least this one small datum. JeffersonClay posted:The economy crashed because it was run by morons so after subjecting more than 200 years of history illustrating the dynamics of capitalist economies to exacting scrutiny, your conclusion is that economic crises happen because the total IQ of the capital class has yet to hit some still-unspecified threshold? how much longer you think we'll need to find people smart enough to own capital?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No that doesn't make sense at all. If they could make more money by firing a lot of people, they'd be doing it right now. Peeps are laying out reasons, why it would be in the self interest of every single capitalist, to increase labour exploitation in an environment of zero growth, and you say it's a conspiracy. Do you not get that the argument being deployed here is functionally equivalent to the 'invisible hands of the free market' I.e. actors moving collectively in response to shared incentives. Why is ever single anti-com guy here a moron
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:07 |
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:welcome to something awful u: today we're having lectures on how businesses become profitable from people who believe capitalism is inherently dehumanizing and unsustainable
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 05:01
|
|