|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Wanting better things doesn't automatically translate into more demand signalling. I want a PS4 because I'd like to play games that I can't play on a PS3, but I don't have the money to afford a PS4. In real terms, my demand for a PS4 doesn't exist because it can't be realized. What you're saying is that a socialist society would be intentionally suicidal and seek the same kind of systems collapse endemic to capitalism for no good reason. You want a PlayStation 4 and would buy one if the price went down. That has an effect, it contributes to price elasticity.
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:05 |
|
|
demand exists independent of the ability to realize it (ie will). Effectively you're saying that, for example, there is No Demand For Cyberpunk 2077, because I can't go out and buy one right now - demand exists, it just can't be realized. also what zimbardo said ^^^
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Nationalize video games
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:You want a PlayStation 4 and would buy one if the price went down. That has an effect, it contributes to price elasticity. If the price went down it wouldn't make a difference, because I'd still be broke.  rudatron posted:demand exists independent of the ability to realize it (ie will). Effectively you're saying that, for example, there is No Demand For Cyberpunk 2077, because I can't go out and buy one right now - demand exists, it just can't be realized. That's an anticipated demand, not a demand which is actually realized. Until you can drop dosh on a pre-order then you can't demand a copy of Cyberpunk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:THERE ARE FOUR CORNERS OF PRODUCTION IN A SINGLE LABOR DAY. FOUR STAGES OF PRODUCTION. THE PROCESS OF PRODUCTION IS QUADRILATERAL. IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS THEN YOU'VE BEEN EDUCATED STUPID!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
Pablo Nergigante posted:Nationalize video games
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
if you're just going to call 'purchases', 'demand', then what is the distinction between the two? Why use different words? I can literally type in 'demand' and the definition that comes up for economics is 'willingness to pay', not 'ability to pay'
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
I don’t think Marx ever refuted, or bothered to address, key concepts of classical economics, like the notion that demand is basically unlimited. Anyway, using market mechanisms to distribute things like luxuries makes a lot of sense in a socialist society. Go read this for a good time
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Pener, you have this really, really bad habit, of never even admitting even the smallest fault. This is such a small little thing, and a simple, 'oh okay' or 'whoops' would be fine. But for reasons that elude me, you can't do that, and we have to keep playing this game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
I would add that a political party platform is just that - a list of commitments a party makes to secure votes or signal its priorities to its constituents. It’s not necessarily a rigorous and highly detailed academic analysis or even a plan of action. But I would say that I think a lot of the really ideologically dedicated prison abolitionists I know would consider their position on prisons to fall short of abolition (which is fine with me since those abolitionists I know are usually pretty utopian about it).
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
rudatron posted:if you're just going to call 'purchases', 'demand', then what is the distinction between the two? Why use different words? I can literally type in 'demand' and the definition that comes up for economics is 'willingness to pay', not 'ability to pay' If you don't have the ability to pay, then you won't have the will to pay either. It's impossible to will into existence something that can't be realized. You're thinking of demand too rigidly in terms of its economic definition under capitalism as a desire for commodities and other stuff, and not considering demand as a command function - which is how economic orders would actually be made under socialism. Desire is of course going to be as unbounded as the human imagination, but that's not how actually existing demand works in the real world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
this shits boring who cares
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
If you desire something but wouldn’t put even a penny towards getting it I would suggest you don’t actually want it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
'willingness' exists independent of the ability to 'will into existence'. The fact that 'will' is in the latter, an idiom, doesn't mean it has anything to do with 'willingness'. You're now just playing semantic games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
this is a instructive lesson for you pener - just because you can obfuscate by throwing words around, until it 'sounds' right, doesn't mean you've actually convinced anyone. what usually happens here, if you were talking with someone else, is that you throw up enough dust, that most people get bored or frustrated, and stop engaging, which you interpret as you 'winning' i'm not doing that, i'm sticking on this, until you relent. because you need to learn this lesson.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
rudatron posted:this is a instructive lesson for you pener - just because you can obfuscate by throwing words around, until it 'sounds' right, doesn't mean you've actually convinced anyone. Dude, you're literally insisting that there's no limit to demand, which is impossible. If there wasn't a limit to demand then there wouldn't be an advertising industry to create new demands. If there wasn't a limit to demand then there wouldn't be a variation in tastes for commodities, like NBA vs. NFL, or Xbox vs. Playstation. If only so many people are willing to demand something then that proves there's an upper limit to demand in the real world. Saying demand is unbounded is an Econ 101 axiom that's never supposed to be taken seriously except by capitalist bootlickers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:I don’t think Marx ever refuted, or bothered to address, key concepts of classical economics, like the notion that demand is basically unlimited. What are you talking about? Marx never said that there was a maximum amount of surplus labor that could be done productively by society. It's almost too ridiculous to mention. DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Go read this for a good time I read it and it sounds bourgeois op
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:If you desire something but wouldn’t put even a penny towards getting it I would suggest you don’t actually want it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Dude, you're literally insisting that there's no limit to demand, which is impossible. If there wasn't a limit to demand then there wouldn't be an advertising industry to create new demands. If there wasn't a limit to demand then there wouldn't be a variation in tastes for commodities, like NBA vs. NFL, or Xbox vs. Playstation. If only so many people are willing to demand something then that proves there's an upper limit to demand in the real world. Saying demand is unbounded is an Econ 101 axiom that's never supposed to be taken seriously except by capitalist bootlickers. Advertising doesn't exist to increase aggregate demand, but to increase comparative demand of one particular set of commodities. This is why ads can simply disparage the competition and work just fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
maybe ya'll should define the word "demand" b/c you guys are arguing over totally different meanings
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:48
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Dude, you're literally insisting that there's no limit to demand, which is impossible. *extremely correct voice* wrong
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:48
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:Advertising doesn't exist to increase aggregate demand, but to increase comparative demand of one particular set of commodities. This is why ads can simply disparage the competition and work just fine. advertising does increase comparative demand too, of course. edit: note that the definition of demand I am using here is the idiot hellfucker definition of spending money
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
Advertising also exists to sublimate human demands (including sexual demands) into commodities that can be produced and sold at greater profit - you haven't created demand form thin air, but psychologically tricked people into thinking they're getting one thing when they're getting another.Pener Kropoopkin posted:Dude, you're literally insisting that there's no limit to demand, which is impossible. If there wasn't a limit to demand then there wouldn't be an advertising industry to create new demands. If there wasn't a limit to demand then there wouldn't be a variation in tastes for commodities, like NBA vs. NFL, or Xbox vs. Playstation. If only so many people are willing to demand something then that proves there's an upper limit to demand in the real world. Saying demand is unbounded is an Econ 101 axiom that's never supposed to be taken seriously except by capitalist bootlickers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
leftistly assuming that classic non-satiation models are correct lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
Even people who play directly with their brain hormones, i.e. drug users, eventually develop dependence on and gain lesser returns from, their substances, by the brain's natural processes. At a fundamental level, human beings cannot be satiated - because if they were, they'd stop moving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:advertising does increase aggregate demand. consumers will go out and buy more stuff instead of "saving" their money. consumers will also increase (short-term) aggregate demand by going into debt in order to buy more stuff until the point where debt servicing eats up all of the demand and destroys the aggregate demand. If I am going to spend X money now, save Y now and spend Y+Z money later, how is advertising making me spend X+Y money now and never spending Z (and maybe having to reduce my future spending even more due to debt & interest) increasing my expected expenditures? Ruzihm fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Jun 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Ruzihm posted:If I am going to spend X money now, save Y now and spend Y+Z money later, how is advertising making me spend X+Y money now and never spending Z increase aggregate demand? In this case the advertising didn't work on you, but that doesn't mean it won't work on other people and create more aggregate demand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:leftistly assuming that classic non-satiation models are correct lol please elaborate. it has got to be more interesting than this rudatron/pener slapfight over semantics
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
only the weak minded care about advertising, it doesn’t effect me. maybe if schools actually taught a little something called critical thinking then we wouldnt have this problem with demand. has anyone ever considered this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Yandat posted:only the weak minded care about advertising, it doesn’t effect me. maybe if schools actually taught a little something called critical thinking then we wouldnt have this problem with demand. has anyone ever considered this? is this a joke post
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
rudatron posted:An anarcho syndicalist society, where everything is a worker cooperative, has only shifted the logic of commodity production & incentives from the 'individual' level to that of the 'firm' level - it will exhibit the same distortions and contradictions as any market economy. The 'agent' of capital accumulation, which follows systemic incentives in pursuit of its self interests, at the expense of everyone else, will simply manifest at level of inter-cooperative competition. Well yes, my point was to show that ownership does not translate to control as that is determined by the particular features of the whole society. The question of 'what system grants the workers control?' then becomes important because individual and collective ownership of (essentially) private capital doesn't. If shifting the logic of capital accumulation away from the individual level doesn't grant the individual control then the problem is with the commodity form - it becomes essential that any socialism subvert the commodity at a obvious and functional (although I agree not total) level which will eventually allow it to encompass all of production. Finicums Wake posted:please elaborate. it has got to be more interesting than this rudatron/pener slapfight over semantics It's the same argument: can wants ever be satisfied or if an agent is offered more of something at no cost will they always take it? This then filters down to motivations and whether the desire to accumulate can ever be satisfied or will there always be a constant struggle to expand and consume and this then leads to politics of how your conception of people can possibly coexist. I support satiation simply because infinite accumulation is a social construction rather than a material limitation (although that exists too) and so yes people can be satisfied, any extra things distributed without upsetting the overall system, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:is this a joke post im gay
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1007679248256196609
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 18:45
|
|
|
war..has changed
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
The best example we have of workers having command over society is Russia in 1917, which was limited by it being a majority peasant country. Lenin recognized that it was essentially a capitalist country ruled by the working class, which is why the Polish-Soviet War was his failed attempt at creating a bridge between Russia and the revolutions in Western Europe that he wanted to assist (primarily Germany). Worker control of production and command over government is frankly unprecedented for an advanced industrial economy. We shouldn't limit our imaginations to worker control. Lenin was merely forced to work with what he had
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Yandat posted:this shits boring who cares gently caress you this thread is one of the few that you can actually learn something about leftward political movements instead of an echo chamber of twitter posts about how the dems/trump/russia/republicans suck fwiw I don't know enough to throw my hat in the ring with rudatron or pener but your debates/conversations are some of the best on these poo poo forums 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jun 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:THERE ARE FOUR CORNERS OF PRODUCTION IN A SINGLE LABOR DAY. FOUR STAGES OF PRODUCTION. THE PROCESS OF PRODUCTION IS QUADRILATERAL. IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS THEN YOU'VE BEEN EDUCATED STUPID!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
The rudatron/pener american chopper meme is the longest running one yet
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:You can do equitable distribution and production for some necessities and markets for others (e.g. caviar). The case for abolishing markets for housing, healthcare, and food is overwhelming. that's why I said markets/money should remain only for stuff you can call luxuries. And when I say luxuries I really mean luxuries, not houses and good food or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:05 |
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:that's why I said markets/money should remain only for stuff you can call luxuries. And when I say luxuries I really mean luxuries, not houses and good food or whatever. but why even keep those when the premise of this hypothetical is that there is an operational framework for non-market organization of distribution of labor & its products.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 19:35
|
|